Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Owlswing on June 23, 2016, 09:16:06 PM
-
Oscar Pistorius has, in a TV interview, said Reeva Steenkamp, the girlfriend he killed, would not want him to spend his life in jail.
Opinions please
-
Oscar Pistorius has, in a TV interview, said Reeva Steenkamp, the girlfriend he killed, would not want him to spend his life in jail.
Opinions please
If he believes he made a genuine mistake he would probably think that she would believe him and so wouldn't want him to spend his life in jail for a mistake.
-
What weight does his opinion have - whether he's sane or not?
-
What weight does his opinion have - whether he's sane or not?
No weight but can explain what he said.
-
This from the man who refuses to address the Court but will do a TV interview
-
He was advised not to address the court, he had to get permission to do the TV interview which he wanted to do in the hope of getting his story across. I will watch the interview.
It's never occurred to me that he is insane. Only he knows the truth of what happened on that night but it's highly possible that he believed there was an intruder and shot into the bathroom, not knowing Reeva was there. Especially if he was not long awake.
In that case it was an accident therefore it's not unreasonable for him to say that Reeva would want him to be free, by all accounts she loved him after all and he loved her.
But who knows?
-
Oscar Pistorius has, in a TV interview, said Reeva Steenkamp, the girlfriend he killed, would not want him to spend his life in jail.
Opinions please
If she was still in a position to express an opinion, he would not be a murderer.
-
If she was still in a position to express an opinion, he would not be a murderer.
Very good point, and he is hardly likely to tell the world that what she really wanted was for him to burn in Hell, now is he?
-
That nasty turd should be locked up for a very long time.
-
That nasty turd should be locked up for a very long time.
. . . and what about the "look at poor me" by taking off his legs and WALKING across the court!
Pathetic as well as murderous!
-
. . . and what about the "look at poor me" by taking off his legs and WALKING across the court!
Pathetic as well as murderous!
He is sane enough to try to win sympathy, which he certainly doesn't deserve, as he is an evil murderer.
-
. . . and what about the "look at poor me" by taking off his legs and WALKING across the court!
Pathetic as well as murderous!
Come on young Owl, he was advised to do that by his defence; we frequently see and hear of pathetic defence in all sorts of cases. He is on trial for murder, you can't get any more serious than that, so all the stops will be pulled out, he is hardly going to be shy about it.
-
He is sane enough to try to win sympathy, which he certainly doesn't deserve, as he is an evil murderer.
You've obviously made your mind up floo ;D.
-
You've obviously made your mind up floo ;D.
YEP!
-
Come on young Owl, he was advised to do that by his defence; we frequently see and hear of pathetic defence in all sorts of cases. He is on trial for murder, you can't get any more serious than that, so all the stops will be pulled out, he is hardly going to be shy about it.
He is lucky tghat, even if found guilty, he is not facing a death sentence! even if he is in prision he has a chance of being released.
Oh, and as a PS, please unlss you are mor that 70 years and 4 days old, less of the 'young', please. There are two/were posters who habitually used this classification to belittle me and my comments and I really don't appreciate it. You don't like my opinionsd, fgine. I can live with that, but unless it is REALLY relevant, leave my age out of it!
YES, it is something about which I am really touchy ALL the time not just once in a while.
-
I do apologise for calling you ''Young'', Owl and promise I won't do it again. I honestly didn't mean it in a patronising way, I respect you. It's a term often used and not thought about but not something I'll do again in a hurry. Really sorry.
-
I wish someone would call me 'young' instead of, 'senile old bat', my Baby Sister's term of endearment! :D
-
. . . and what about the "look at poor me" by taking off his legs and WALKING across the court!
Pathetic as well as murderous!
Or if it was a genuine mistake on his behalf he was trying to show how his disability effects him to support his defence case.
-
Or if it was a genuine mistake on his behalf he was trying to show how his disability effects him to support his defence case.
That guy has used guns before in anger, he actually managed to shoot someone in a restaurant once, I believe, but didn't kill them!
-
I intend to watch the interview with him on ITV tonight at 9pm, to see if I can get the measure of the man and have a better idea. At the moment, I really don't know.
-
That guy has used guns before in anger, he actually managed to shoot someone in a restaurant once, I believe, but didn't kill them!
He certainly has issues - and was diagnosed with GAD - but that doesn't necessarily make him an 'evil murderer'. He may be, or could have genuinely believed an intruder was behind the toilet door and over reacted due to those issues. If the later is true, or iof he truely now believes it to me true, then his comments make sense and do not make him insane.
-
He certainly has issues - and was diagnosed with GAD - but that doesn't necessarily make him an 'evil murderer'. He may be, or could have genuinely believed an intruder was behind the toilet door and over reacted due to those issues. If the later is true, or iof he truely now believes it to me true, then his comments make sense and do not make him insane.
Oh dear poor man, NOT!
-
Oh dear poor man, NOT!
You clearly have formed your opinion and have no doubt about his guilt and so are happy to call him an evil murderer. I don't have that certainty when it being murder rather than culpable homicide/manslaughter and am surprised that anyone does who isn't involved in the case and doesn't know the man.
-
Isn't it murder whoever he thought was behind the door?
-
I wouldn't have thought so if he believed there was an intruder who might well have shot him first. Also as he shot through the door, he wasn't necessarily shooting to kill.
It's difficult for us to judge that point as we don't allow everyone to have guns in this country. This case makes me all the more glad that we don't!
-
I watched the interview last night. To answer the question posed by the title of this thread, I think Oscar Pistorius is sane. He has acute anxiety and is no doubt depressed, neither of which make him insane. It would be surprising if he didn't have anxiety and depression.
As to whether he committed murder or culpable homicide, I really do not know. There are many holes in the prosecution case, eg a text message to Reeva from her ex-boyfriend which never happened, drugs found in the house which turned out to be homeopathic stuff.
There is absolutely no motive.
I hope that, if there is any shadow of doubt, he will be cleared of murder; he was originally convicted of culpable homicide, which he doesn't refute, so let that stand.
I am very glad indeed that we have trial by jury here and that jurors can be thrown out by the defence or prosecution if deemed unsuitable - or unbiased. The SA justice system is difficult to understand. It doesn't help that the man has been tried by the media and so many are baying for his blood.
-
Very good post Brownie - sums up my thoughts too.
-
It is Reeva Steencamp's family for whom we should have sympathy not Pistorius, imo.
-
Come on young Owl, he was advised to do that by his defence; we frequently see and hear of pathetic defence in all sorts of cases. He is on trial for murder, you can't get any more serious than that, so all the stops will be pulled out, he is hardly going to be shy about it.
I think that you will find that he is not being tried for murder. The sentence has already been passed when the SA Appeal Court changed his sentence to murder. What is being decided is the SA murder sentence assessment procedure which will eventually decide on the length of his sentence.
-
I think that you will find that he is not being tried for murder. The sentence has already been passed when the SA Appeal Court changed his sentence to murder. What is being decided is the SA murder sentence assessment procedure which will eventually decide on the length of his sentence.
Exactly, and I hope it is a very long one!
-
It is Reeva Steencamp's family for whom we should have sympathy not Pistorius, imo.
Of course we should have great sympathy for them and more so than for Pistorius because he was certainky guilty of something - but it is not an either or situation.
Did you watch the program out of interest?
-
Or if it was a genuine mistake on his behalf he was trying to show how his disability effects him to support his defence case.
The best you can possibly say is that he discharged a firearm without knowing what he was firing at. At the best that is gross negligence leading to a homicide. Even in that case he deserves to be in prison for a long time.
-
The best you can possibly say is that he discharged a firearm without knowing what he was firing at. At the best that is gross negligence leading to a homicide. Even in that case he deserves to be in prison for a long time.
Agreed. Does that make him an evil murderer?
-
Agreed. Does that make him an evil murderer?
I think he deliberately set out to kill whoever was behind the door. The fact that he didn't know it was his girlfriend is not relevant. There's no evidence that his life was in immediate danger, so self defence does not apply. In the UK, it's definitely a conviction for murder. South Africa might have different laws regarding trespassers.
-
Agreed. Does that make him an evil murderer?
Yes because he meant to harm the person behind the door, he shot more than once.
-
I don't know how anyone can think themselves into someone else's mind.
Anyway there's not much we can do about it.
-
I don't know how anyone can think themselves into someone else's mind.
Anyway there's not much we can do about it.
Indeed.
-
Pistorius did the crime so he must do the time, and plenty of it I hope.
-
Did you watch the TV interview floo?
-
Pistorius did the crime so he must do the time, and plenty of it I hope.
He did a crime, which he admits. Which crime is the question.
-
That's what I think. I come to this unbiased, Oscar Pistorius is not someone who is particularly well known to me apart from being the blade runner. There's no doubt that he killed his girlfriend; the prosecution makes the case that it would be murder whoever was behind the door. I don't understand how anyone would know that, a few random shots through a door would not guarantee death, more likely the person on the other side would be injured. However did he intend to kill someone, Reeva or anyone else? There was no motive to kill her, it's more than possible he wanted to injure someone to prevent them injuring him.
The only person who really knows is him. We can't see into his mind.
When I asked floo if she had seen the interview (and someone else, maybe you, asked her the same beforehand), it wasn't because of Oscar Pistorius's personality or feelings but because of the dubious evidence that was discussed, evidence that has been completely debunked - but a lot of people don't know about that. Maybe they don't want to know.
It strikes me that many people want him to be guilty of murder, regardless of whether or not it is the truth which has nothing to do with being sympathetic or not to him, or unsympathetic to Reeva's family. I don't understand the bias.
-
Absolutely. I spoke to a couple of people today who hadn't seen the program and they all said things like 'He had a violent temper' or 'He knew she was in there' and 'I can't see anyway he can say he didn't mean to kill her'. They were all basing these comments on very little knowledge and on the headlines they had seen. I am not defending Pistorious but just feel the need to speak up and raises questions when people seem to certain about the case. It would be interesting to hear from Floo as to whether she saw the program or not and on what she bases her comments.
-
Agreed. Does that make him an evil murderer?
Why did he not ask "who is there?" - if it was an intruder he would have got no answer - so open fire - if it was his girlfriend he would have got the reply "who the fuck do you think it bloody is" and she would be alive
-
Why did he not ask "who is there?" - if it was an intruder he would have got no answer - so open fire - if it was his girlfriend he would have got the reply "who the fuck do you think it bloody is" and she would be alive
I agree. Surely that nasty man must have realised she wasn't in bed with him, so it must have been her in the loo. He has not one iota of an excuse for his actions.
-
Have you both read his account? Did you watch the interview (you've been asked this several times Floo but not answered)? This does not mean that he was telling the truth - I don't know - but surely it is best to address his account rather than what people think happened based on newspaper headlines etc. In his account he got out of bed to close the sliding doors, then heard a noise along the corridor, and panicked thinking it was an intruder (there had been a case of this a few doors down in the weeks before). He said he whispered to Reeva, he thought, to get down on the floor then carefully went to investigate. scared and panicking. He saw a window in the bathroom then started shouting at what he thought was an intruder to get out. The door to the toilet then closed as Reeva went in. The idea is that she heard him shouting at a possible intruder and shut herself away to hide from the intruder. He moved to the door, shouted more, and getting no response fired. If Reeva believed there was an intruder, based on the fact that Pistorious was shouting and screaming as if there was one, would she have necessarily said anything, bringing attention ion to her, or would she have kept quiet, locked away in the toilet feeling safe?
As I say, I don't know if his account is the truth or not - no one does, probably not even him any more - and I'm not saying he is blameless, he clearly is guilty of something, its just the labeling of someone without consideration of the full picture which I wanted to address.
-
Have you both read his account? Did you watch the interview (you've been asked this several times Floo but not answered)? This does not mean that he was telling the truth - I don't know - but surely it is best to address his account rather than what people think happened based on newspaper headlines etc. In his account he got out of bed to close the sliding doors, then heard a noise along the corridor, and panicked thinking it was an intruder (there had been a case of this a few doors down in the weeks before). He said he whispered to Reeva, he thought, to get down on the floor then carefully went to investigate. scared and panicking. He saw a window in the bathroom then started shouting at what he thought was an intruder to get out. The door to the toilet then closed as Reeva went in. The idea is that she heard him shouting at a possible intruder and shut herself away to hide from the intruder. He moved to the door, shouted more, and getting no response fired. If Reeva believed there was an intruder, based on the fact that Pistorious was shouting and screaming as if there was one, would she have necessarily said anything, bringing attention ion to her, or would she have kept quiet, locked away in the toilet feeling safe?
As I say, I don't know if his account is the truth or not - no one does, probably not even him any more - and I'm not saying he is blameless, he clearly is guilty of something, its just the labeling of someone without consideration of the full picture which I wanted to address.
That seems like a plausible account. The only problem is that Pistorius opened fire on somebody (never mind that he didn't know who it was) without there being any evidence that he was in danger i.e. there was no self defence justification.
He's a murderer whether he knew it was his girlfriend or not.
-
That seems like a plausible account. The only problem is that Pistorius opened fire on somebody (never mind that he didn't know who it was) without there being any evidence that he was in danger i.e. there was no self defence justification.
He's a murderer whether he knew it was his girlfriend or not.
I agree. He had not reason to use deadly force.
He should have gone and huddled with Reeva behind the bed (where he said she was), and waited.
He had a gun, so he they were not in immediate danger.
-
He said he panicked. Hindsight is all very well, he should have done differently and knows that.
I wondered what I would do, or how I would feel, if there was an intruder in my house, possibly behind a door. Of course we don't have firearms here, or most of us don't. I honestly don't know what I'd do, probably freeze with fear but - if there was some sort of weapon handy and I knew how to use it.....who knows? It is such a different culture over in South Africa.
Murder implies intent to kill, not just to maim, and we don't know if he intended to kill anyone on that day.
There's more baying for blood about Pistorius than there was about OJ Simpson all those years ago, and in his case there was evidence of him fleeing in his car (and he wasn't found guilty). I wonder why, was OJ more popular? I thought Pistorius was a national hero in SA but he seems to be universally hated because of this.
It reminds me of those cases on the TV news, when people are suspected of a murder and/or heinous violent crime, and rent a mob appear out of nowhere to bang on the prison van, demonstrate and shout. I've never understood why they do that when the person is going to be tried in a court of law. We should leave it to the law, it may not always get it right but it does a lot of the time.
Hopefully this case will be fair and just, and seen to be so, to the victim's family and to Oscar Pistorius.
-
He said he panicked. Hindsight is all very well, he should have done differently and knows that.
I wondered what I would do, or how I would feel, if there was an intruder in my house, possibly behind a door. Of course we don't have firearms here, or most of us don't. I honestly don't know what I'd do, probably freeze with fear but - if there was some sort of weapon handy and I knew how to use it.....who knows? It is such a different culture over in South Africa.
Murder implies intent to kill, not just to maim, and we don't know if he intended to kill anyone on that day.
There's more baying for blood about Pistorius than there was about OJ Simpson all those years ago, and in his case there was evidence of him fleeing in his car (and he wasn't found guilty). I wonder why, was OJ more popular? I thought Pistorius was a national hero in SA but he seems to be universally hated because of this.
It reminds me of those cases on the TV news, when people are suspected of a murder and/or heinous violent crime, and rent a mob appear out of nowhere to bang on the prison van, demonstrate and shout. I've never understood why they do that when the person is going to be tried in a court of law. We should leave it to the law, it may not always get it right but it does a lot of the time.
Hopefully this case will be fair and just, and seen to be so, to the victim's family and to Oscar Pistorius.
If I had a gun, I would not be as fearful as if I did not have one.
I do not believe him. A gun gives you the edge.
-
Have you both read his account? Did you watch the interview (you've been asked this several times Floo but not answered)? This does not mean that he was telling the truth - I don't know - but surely it is best to address his account rather than what people think happened based on newspaper headlines etc. In his account he got out of bed to close the sliding doors, then heard a noise along the corridor, and panicked thinking it was an intruder (there had been a case of this a few doors down in the weeks before). He said he whispered to Reeva, he thought, to get down on the floor then carefully went to investigate. scared and panicking. He saw a window in the bathroom then started shouting at what he thought was an intruder to get out. The door to the toilet then closed as Reeva went in. The idea is that she heard him shouting at a possible intruder and shut herself away to hide from the intruder. He moved to the door, shouted more, and getting no response fired. If Reeva believed there was an intruder, based on the fact that Pistorious was shouting and screaming as if there was one, would she have necessarily said anything, bringing attention ion to her, or would she have kept quiet, locked away in the toilet feeling safe?
As I say, I don't know if his account is the truth or not - no one does, probably not even him any more - and I'm not saying he is blameless, he clearly is guilty of something, its just the labeling of someone without consideration of the full picture which I wanted to address.
Of course I have read his account and don't believe the evil turd for one second. Don't forget he has used a gun in anger before that tragic incident!
I just don't understand why people make excuses for him.
-
If I had a gun, I would not be as fearful as if I did not have one.
I do not believe him. A gun gives you the edge.
How would you know an intruder didn't have a gun? How would you know there wasn't more than one intruder? He was on his stumps and thought he was protecting his girlfriend in the bedroom behind him - if his account is correct.
The argument about murder comes down to intent it seems and clearly can be debated - as seen by the different decisions reached by different courts. It has to be shown that he intended to kill whoever was behind the door for it to be murder. All along I have recognised that he was guilty of firing without knowing who was behind the door so guilty of something - but it is terms like 'evil murderer' which need questioning. Who knows what we would do in a similar position where we were scared, vulnerable (on his stumps) and panicking?
-
How would you know an intruder didn't have a gun? How would you know there wasn't more than one intruder? He was on his stumps and thought he was protecting his girlfriend in the bedroom behind him - if his account is correct.
The argument about murder comes down to intent it seems and clearly can be debated - as seen by the different decisions reached by different courts. It has to be shown that he intended to kill whoever was behind the door for it to be murder. All along I have recognised that he was guilty of firing without knowing who was behind the door so guilty of something - but it is terms like 'evil murderer' which need questioning. Who knows what we would do in a similar position where we were scared, vulnerable (on his stumps) and panicking?
We don't, but we don't care. When he walks through the door you shoot.
You have surprise and you are in a hidden position, he will be in the doorway.
Easy.
-
We don't, but we don't care. When he walks through the door you shoot.
You have surprise and you are in a hidden position, he will be in the doorway.
Easy.
Yeah, easy.
-
Of course I have read his account and don't believe the evil turd for one second.
Based on what evidence Floo?
Don't forget he has used a gun in anger before that tragic incident!
There were two alleged incidents. One an accidental discharge in a restaurant and the other firing out of a sun roof. Not quite the same as intentional firing at someone with intent.
I just don't understand why people make excuses for him.
Its not excuses, its trying to properly understand what happened based on the evidence and avoiding labels and judgements based on opinion.
-
My gut feeling tells me Pistorius is as guilty as hell, I certainly didn't believe his play acting during his trial, it didn't ring true.
-
So no evidence?
-
Floo, I mentioned the rent-a-mob people earlier, who decide people are guilty of something heinous, demonstrate outside courts and ban on the prison vans. The would use words like, "Evil turd", and talk about gut reactions. I wouldn't have thought someone of your background would be like them.
Thank goodness our law protects the innocent and the guilty from gut reactions.
Let's leave Pistorius to the law of his land and hope they get it right.
-
I hope there is an appeal if that murderer, which he is, doesn't get a very long sentence.
-
You don't even consider or read anything anyone says. This is a discussion forum.
-
I hope there is an appeal if that murderer, which he is, doesn't get a very long sentence.
The legal process should follow its course and a decision made based on the evidence.
-
You don't even consider or read anything anyone says. This is a discussion forum.
I have read it, but I don't agree with the excuses, which are being made for that murderer's behaviour. He is as guilty as hell, imo, and fortunately the court now sees it that way.
I wonder if some would be quite so forgiving if he wasn't disabled? Disability is NO excuse for murder!
-
The argument about murder comes down to intent it seems and clearly can be debated
I don't think he's denying that he shot through that door with intent. The fact that he didn't know who he was firing at does not absolve him of their murder.
-
I don't think he's denying that he shot through that door with intent. The fact that he didn't know who he was firing at does not absolve him of their murder.
I think he must be, since he is denying murder but accepting culpable homicide. I've never seen him say he fired intending to kill whoever was behind the door.
-
I don't think he's denying that he shot through that door with intent. The fact that he didn't know who he was firing at does not absolve him of their murder.
You are right, but I find it very hard to believe he didn't realise it was Reeva in the bathroom. It was much more likely they had a row and he shot her in a fit of temper.
-
I have read it, but I don't agree with the excuses, which are being made for that murderer's behaviour. He is as guilty as hell, imo, and fortunately the court now sees it that way.
I wonder if some would be quite so forgiving if he wasn't disabled? Disability is NO excuse for murder!
A discussion is a bit more than just stating one position regardless. You haven't addressed any points made to you (which you dismiss as excuses) but just say you don't believe them, based on a gut feeling.
-
He said he panicked. Hindsight is all very well, he should have done differently and knows that.
I wondered what I would do, or how I would feel, if there was an intruder in my house, possibly behind a door. Of course we don't have firearms here, or most of us don't. I honestly don't know what I'd do, probably freeze with fear but - if there was some sort of weapon handy and I knew how to use it.....who knows? It is such a different culture over in South Africa.
Murder implies intent to kill, not just to maim, and we don't know if he intended to kill anyone on that day.
There's more baying for blood about Pistorius than there was about OJ Simpson all those years ago, and in his case there was evidence of him fleeing in his car (and he wasn't found guilty). I wonder why, was OJ more popular? I thought Pistorius was a national hero in SA but he seems to be universally hated because of this.
It reminds me of those cases on the TV news, when people are suspected of a murder and/or heinous violent crime, and rent a mob appear out of nowhere to bang on the prison van, demonstrate and shout. I've never understood why they do that when the person is going to be tried in a court of law. We should leave it to the law, it may not always get it right but it does a lot of the time.
Hopefully this case will be fair and just, and seen to be so, to the victim's family and to Oscar Pistorius.
Sometimes, Bronie, your being "Devil's Advocate" all tihe time can be really irritating!
-
A discussion is a bit more than just stating one position regardless. You haven't addressed any points made to you (which you dismiss as excuses) but just say you don't believe them, based on a gut feeling.
He did not act reasonably or proportionately.
So he should be accused of murder.
-
A discussion is a bit more than just stating one position regardless. You haven't addressed any points made to you (which you dismiss as excuses) but just say you don't believe them, based on a gut feeling.
I think the so called points made are excuses for his behaviour, and have no relevance, imo.
Anyway there is not much else to say on this topic, until we hear the actual sentence the court imposes on him.
-
He did not act reasonably or proportionately.
So he should be accused of murder.
The court should decide if its murder or not based on the evidence.
-
I think the so called points made are excuses for his behaviour, and have no relevance, imo.
Yes, obviously, but just dismissing them doesn't make a discussion.
Anyway there is not much else to say on this topic, until we hear the actual sentence the court imposes on him.
If you don't want to comment any more, that's fine. Not really up to you to call an end to the discussion though.
-
The court should decide if its murder or not based on the evidence.
It has already been decided that it was murder - it is that the sentence applied was insufficient for the crime that is under discussion by the court!!
The matter of the sentence was passed back as the Supreme Court decided that 15 years was insufficient and the minimum to be served IN prison even more so!!
-
YAWN!!!!!!!!!! I called an end to it where I am concerned until we hear what sentence is imposed.
-
I must admit I hadn't thought about his disability, something he has coped with well for a long time. The only time I did was when he was feted as the blade runner.
Floo, with you it is all personal and vicious. That is not unbiased. Others on here who feel he is guilty of murder don't use the language you use and present reasoned arguments.
Anyway I'm giving up on this. It's not in our hands and I will accept whatever the outcome is, not that I have any choice but I won't moan about it. I do like the UK legal system, for all its faults, better than the South African one though, that's now plain to me.
PS: Just seen your post Owlswing, I didn't realise I was devil's advocate all the time, well you never see yourself as others do ;D. I'm surprised it irritates you, you can ignore me. Funnily enough I do know someone who is always devil's advocate and it irritates me sometimes but he's the sort of person who shouts others down, talks over them, which is wearing (has lots of good points too). I hope I'm not like that.
-
YAWN!!!!!!!!!! I called an end to it where I am concerned until we hear what sentence is imposed.
Not what you said. And YAWN!!!!!! is so childish.
-
It has already been decided that it was murder - it is that the sentence applied was insufficient for the crime that is under discussion by the court!!
The matter of the sentence was passed back as the Supreme Court decided that 15 years was insufficient and the minimum to be served IN prison even more so!!
Correct.
-
I think he must be, since he is denying murder but accepting culpable homicide. I've never seen him say he fired intending to kill whoever was behind the door.
"Culpable homicide"? That sounds like murder but with some mitigating factors to me.
He knew somebody was on the other side of the door, he shot through it, there's no possibility it was self defence. It's murder.
At least it would be in the UK. The law may be different in South Africa.
-
"Culpable homicide"? That sounds like murder but with some mitigating factors to me.
Just looked it up. Culpable homicide is only manslaughter. However, Pistorius's conviction was overturned and changed to murder, which I think, on the facts of the case, is the correct conviction.
-
I see that nasty creep has only been given a 6 year sentence for killing Reeva. That is total insult to her and her grieving family. Pistorius should have been given at least 15 years. I hope there is another appeal.
-
I see that nasty creep has only been given a 6 year sentence for killing Reeva. That is total insult to her and her grieving family. Pistorius should have been given at least 15 years. I hope there is another appeal.
You clearly have your opinion of Pistorious and that won't change so no point in discussing that - but have you read the judge's statement?
-
You clearly have your opinion of Pistorious and that won't change so no point in discussing that - but have you read the judge's statement?
Yes I have, and I totally disagree with it. Pistorius is a murderer and no clemency should be given to him.
-
You obviously know things that the judge doesn't know floo.
He has been convicted of murder, sentenced, so now it is all over unless there is an appeal. I sincerely hope he doesn't appeal against the murder conviction, I know he said he would gladly do a long sentence but not for murder. In view of all the adverse press, it might be worse for him if he appealed against the murder conviction now. Certainly it wouldn't change any the public views and there's no new evidence. Best to let it be now (I doubt anyone concerned is going to listen to me :D).
I'm glad it is, or appears to be, all done. I really believe that showing trials on television is not right. It's done in America where entire families sit glued to the box, arguing the rights and wrongs, which cannot be healthy. Far better to just read or hear a news report. Public opinion can influence the fairness of the outcome of a trial and that is not right, imo, we might just as well have lynchings. Seething with indignation afterwards isn't going to help the victim and certainly doesn't do anything for the person seething!
-
There should be an appeal to try to get the sentence extended to at least 15 years, it is a travesty of justice to think that creep with be out in 3 years. He is danger to the public, imo.
-
There should be an appeal to try to get the sentence extended to at least 15 years, it is a travesty of justice to think that creep with be out in 3 years. He is danger to the public, imo.
And why do you think your opinion is right whereas that of the judge who has looked at all the evidence isn't?
-
And why do you think your opinion is right whereas that of the judge who has looked at all the evidence isn't?
I think that there is another angle from which this case can be looked at and I am not exactly sure how to make a judgement call on it.
To all intents and purposes Pistorius athletic career was/is over. Other, younger, athletes had destroyed his one-time absolute supremacy in the field.
I think, at it is only my opinion, that the only person who is of any importance is Pistorius' world IS Pistorius and that he would do anything to retain his position in the public eye, including killing his girl-friend. I think that he banked on his celebrity status, not on hi personal celebrity status but his celebrity as a representative of South Africa, to ensure that he receive clement treatment at the hands of the judiciary, it went wrong and he got a far longer sentence than he bargained for and he used his celebrity to generate the publicity to get a far shorter sentence.
I can see no other reason why the sight of Reeva's father’s devastation at his daughter's death should be ignored in the way it has been.
In my personal view, the justice system and the judiciary of South Africa have not come out of this with any honour whatsoever.
-
And why do you think your opinion is right whereas that of the judge who has looked at all the evidence isn't?
Pistorius is a murderer, a six year sentence, of which he will only serve three years, is a travesty of justice, the judge is wrong, imo!
-
I think that there is another angle from which this case can be looked at and I am not exactly sure how to make a judgement call on it.
To all intents and purposes Pistorius athletic career was/is over. Other, younger, athletes had destroyed his one-time absolute supremacy in the field.
I think, at it is only my opinion, that the only person who is of any importance is Pistorius' world IS Pistorius and that he would do anything to retain his position in the public eye, including killing his girl-friend. I think that he banked on his celebrity status, not on hi personal celebrity status but his celebrity as a representative of South Africa, to ensure that he receive clement treatment at the hands of the judiciary, it went wrong and he got a far longer sentence than he bargained for and he used his celebrity to generate the publicity to get a far shorter sentence.
I can see no other reason why the sight of Reeva's father’s devastation at his daughter's death should be ignored in the way it has been.
In my personal view, the justice system and the judiciary of South Africa have not come out of this with any honour whatsoever.
Really? Wow.
-
Really? Wow.
Yes REALLY.
There is also the fact that, as his popularity diminished, more and more attention was lavished on Reeva.
The way he worked the Court, pathetically wandering around on his stumps, floods of tears, the press conference, all the attention on HIM, and his plea that he would not be able, because of his disability and the nasty men in prison, be able to survive a long sentence.
Reeva didn't survive going for a piss!
-
Yes REALLY.
There is also the fact that, as his popularity diminished, more and more attention was lavished on Reeva.
The way he worked the Court, pathetically wandering around on his stumps, floods of tears, the press conference, all the attention on HIM, and his plea that he would not be able, because of his disability and the nasty men in prison, be able to survive a long sentence.
Reeva didn't survive going for a piss!
Sounds total nonsense to me but if that's what you want to believe ....
-
It does sound like nonsense, so hateful. If the trial had not been televised I doubt any of us would have had an opinion.
Thank goodness the law is, or is supposed to be, unbiased. Public opinion and gut reactions have to be ignored.
Anyway he's in prison now so people can be satisfied and get on with real life.
-
It does sound like nonsense, so hateful. If the trial had not been televised I doubt any of us would have had an opinion.
Thank goodness the law is, or is supposed to be, unbiased. Public opinion and gut reactions have to be ignored.
Anyway he's in prison now so people can be satisfied and get on with real life.
Would you be satisfied if it had been your daughter behind the toilet door?
I know that I wouldn't and I somehow doubt if Maeght would either!
-
Would you be satisfied if it had been your daughter behind the toilet door?
I know that I wouldn't and I somehow doubt if Maeght would either!
Probably not, no.
-
There should be an appeal to try to get the sentence extended to at least 15 years, it is a travesty of justice to think that creep with be out in 3 years. He is danger to the public, imo.
How do you know? Have you studied all the facts of the case like the judge has? Have you seen the psychological reports so that you have a factual basis for your assertion that he is a danger to the public.
-
You said you'd read the judges statement Floo so just wondered if you still stood by this, since the judge said there was not a shred of evidence that he had killed her after they had had a row
It was much more likely they had a row and he shot her in a fit of temper.
-
Of course I wouldn't be happy if my daughter was shot behind a door, I'd feel all sorts of things that I can only begin to imagine. I would be biased. That's why we have laws of the land, to prevent people from taking the law into their own hands and looking for revenge.
There was no evidence that the couple had had a row and even if they had, rows don't usually lead to murder. There was no motive for murder. Floo says: "It was much more likely they had a row and he shot her in a fit of temper." Where's your proof floo? You've just decided that's how it was. Thank goodness you are not a judge, there would certainly be no justice, never mind mercy.
However Oscar Pistorius has been convicted of murder and is now in prison so why are we still arguing about it.
-
You said you'd read the judges statement Floo so just wondered if you still stood by this, since the judge said there was not a shred of evidence that he had killed her after they had had a row
Yet at the first trial several neighbours stated that they had heard a loud screaming match between Reeva and Pistorious some time that night before the shots!
-
This is from the Guardian, March 2014:
A witness told the trial that she heard “bloodcurdling screams” on the night the Paralympian shot his girlfriend dead. The witness, Michelle Burger, told the court she heard two people – a man and a woman – shouting, adding: “The fear in that woman’s voice; you only fear like that if your life is threatened.”
Burger said she heard four gunshots on the night in question.
-
Yet at the first trial several neighbours stated that they had heard a loud screaming match between Reeva and Pistorious some time that night before the shots!
So do you think the judge wasn't aware of that? The reliability of that evidence was questioned at the original trial (the witnesses were some distance away and closer witnesses did not agree with what they said for example) and clearly the judge does not consider it reliable to have said what she did.
-
Well done, I was looking for something about that to add to my previous post and the computer went 'off', so I left it. I remembered the woman's evidence was refuted but not the details.
When she said: "The fear in that woman’s voice; you only fear like that if your life is threatened.”, that did not ring true. I don't believe anyone would say that in a court of law, it's far too dramatic and it was her opinion. Difficult to believe too as she was not a near neighbour. I'm not saying she lied, she must have heard something but she obviously exaggerated it in her mind. However, that's just my opinion which is even less relevant than hers.
The fact is that he's serving time for murder which is what some people wanted, so why can't they draw a line under it. Reeva Steenkamp's family may not be able to do so, which is understandable, but even they must have some closure now. Nothing will bring her back and life must go on.
-
Well done, I was looking for something about that to add to my previous post and the computer went 'off', so I left it. I remembered the woman's evidence was refuted but not the details.
When she said: "The fear in that woman’s voice; you only fear like that if your life is threatened.”, that did not ring true. I don't believe anyone would say that in a court of law, it's far too dramatic and it was her opinion. Difficult to believe too as she was not a near neighbour. I'm not saying she lied, she must have heard something but she obviously exaggerated it in her mind. However, that's just my opinion which is even less relevant than hers.
The fact is that he's serving time for murder which is what some people wanted, so why can't they draw a line under it. Reeva Steenkamp's family may not be able to do so, which is understandable, but even they must have some closure now. Nothing will bring her back and life must go on.
OK OK Brownie and Meaght
Pistorious is a Saint and Reeva committed suicide by hiding in the toilet and acting like a burglar
-
OK OK Brownie and Meaght
Pistorious is a Saint and Reeva committed suicide by hiding in the toilet and acting like a burglar
Nobody has said that. If you can't address the points being made best to drop out of the discussion rather than take that approach.
-
Pistorius has no excuse for the crime he committed his disability is NOT an excuse. I hope he finds the all too short time he is spending in prison very hard indeed!
-
Pistorius has no excuse for the crime he committed his disability is NOT an excuse. I hope he finds the all too short time he is spending in prison very hard indeed!
So, as ever, no attempt to answer points made to you or the questions asked - just another case of you stating your opinion, repeatedly.
-
Yep! :D
-
OK OK Brownie and Meaght
Pistorious is a Saint and Reeva committed suicide by hiding in the toilet and acting like a burglar
Neither of us said that Owlswing, honestly. You know that.
I am accepting of his conviction and sentence, it's sorted as far as I'm concerned. I just feel, or have felt, that justice may not be done and justice is the most important thing. It's all over now though.
I don't understand the outrage and the downright spluttering viciousness on the part of uninvolved people, pontificating from their armchairs, who don't know any more than me - and all I know is what I've read and seen on the TV. There's something unhealthy about that, like jeering outside a court and banging on the meat wagon. In the past there were public hangings and I daresay they engendered the same emotions in the spectators. (I'm not putting you in that category Owl.)
This case is terribly tragic and people seem to lose sight of that fact. Quite honestly, I don't want to think about it any more. I'm glad I don't live in SA and that trials are less public here, we read reports but don't see it all on TV and though there are plenty of violent crimes, they are far less.
There was a horrible murder in SA not long ago of a young woman from the Hindocha* family who was on honeymoon in South Africa; it looked as though her husband was guilty at one time but there wasn't enough evidence to convict. That was terribly upsetting too, her family have never had closure. At least Reeva Steemkamp's family have that, however difficult. Though they will never understand 'why'.
*Anni Dewani I think.
-
I have just seen this.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-36855498
Pistorius's sentence is to be reviewed as it is considered far too lenient and is bringing the justice system into disrepute.
-
I have just seen this.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-36855498
Pistorius's sentence is to be reviewed as it is considered far too lenient and is bringing the justice system into disrepute.
I seriously hope that this time they get it right. Someone on the radio this morning was saying that the law on sentencing for murder had been "disgracefully ignored" and there are, apparently, also calls for disciplinary charges to be brought against the judge.
-
I seriously hope that this time they get it right. Someone on the radio this morning was saying that the law on sentencing for murder had been "disgracefully ignored" and there are, apparently, also calls for disciplinary charges to be brought against the judge.
And rightly so if that is the case. One wonders if the judge has received a backhander to keep the sentence ludicrously low?
-
As far as I can tell, the judge is a highly respected person of integrity. Judges can only rule as they see fit at the time. I don't understand why there is going to be an appeal by the prosecution - if there is going to be one, it might just be a proposal - but if there is it will all be reviewed.
-
As far as I can tell, the judge is a highly respected person of integrity. Judges can only rule as they see fit at the time. I don't understand why there is going to be an appeal by the prosecution - if there is going to be one, it might just be a proposal - but if there is it will all be reviewed.
When the verdict was culpable homicide, the judge gave a sentence close to the maximum possible, now it is murder, the same judge has given a verdict close to the minimum possible in a case in which none of the mitigating circumstances have changed. It's almost like somebody said "make sure he gets five or six years".
Having said that, I think incompetence or simply making a mistake are more likely than a conspiracy.
-
Well we'll have to wait and see what happens if there is an appeal against the sentence and if there is and the result is a longer prison term, accept it.
-
Pistorius is a very nasty piece of work who is quite likely to kill again, in a fit of temper, if he is released. Personally I would throw away the key!
-
Pistorius is a very nasty piece of work who is quite likely to kill again, in a fit of temper, if he is released. Personally I would throw away the key!
When was it you did your psych evaluation of him?
-
When was it you did your psych evaluation of him?
He has shot at a personal in a restaurant once, but didn't kill them, he should have been sent down for that too.
-
He has shot at a personal in a restaurant once, but didn't kill them, he should have been sent down for that too.
He got away with it that time and cannot see why he should not get away with it this time too.
-
He got away with it that time and cannot see why he should not get away with it this time too.
If the guy is deemed mentally ill, as some are saying he is, he should be put in a secure unit in a psychiatric hospital until such time as he is deemed not a danger to the public.
-
If the guy is deemed mentally ill, as some are saying he is, he should be put in a secure unit in a psychiatric hospital until such time as he is deemed not a danger to the public.
AS long as he doesn't have a gun in his hand the only danger to the public is from his monumental ego!
-
He has shot at a personal in a restaurant once, but didn't kill them, he should have been sent down for that too.
Ah, so your opinion was just based on one story.
-
Ah, so your opinion was just based on one story.
If he was living near to you instead of in S A would you be happy with him bering in possession of a gun anywhere close to you or your family - especially if any of you worked in a restaurant?
-
If he was living near to you instead of in S A would you be happy with him bering in possession of a gun anywhere close to you or your family - especially if any of you worked in a restaurant?
I would be pretty unhappy with anybody in possession of a gun in my restaurant. I'd certainly call the police, since it is illegal here.
-
We were in a restaurant in January, when a young kid at an adjoining table was permitted, by his parents to 'shoot' the diners with his realistic looking toy gun! As you can imagine that didn't go down well and they were told to leave.
-
I have a tiny toy gun :D, it is behind things in my medicine box. Never used it - yet. Beware! When I was a child I had a cap gun and a cowboy hat. Grown ups seemed to be more wary of water pistols, I wonder why.
Seriously, I would think Oscar Pistorius's ego has been seriously deflated, never to be inflated because, whatever happens, he is a big Hate Figure in South Africa now.
I find the report of him firing a gun in a restaurant, for no apparent reason, quite disturbing. It has nothing to do with his recent trial but, let's face it, it is a bizarre, never mind dangerous, thing to do. Makes me glad that, with some exceptions, owning firearms is illegal here.
A few years in prison will drastically change the man - even a few months changes someone so a long sentence will take its toll of him. Surely that's enough, he doesn't have much to come out to or look forward to, relationship-wife, money is a cold comfort, and nothing will bring back his ex-girlfriend.
-
We were in a restaurant in January, when a young kid at an adjoining table was permitted, by his parents to 'shoot' the diners with his realistic looking toy gun! As you can imagine that didn't go down well and they were told to leave.
A good point Floo.
Just how close do you have to be to be absolutely certain, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that a weapon being pointed at you is the real McCoy or a toy!
How many shopkeepers have found out, to their cost, just how hard this is? Especially when your hesitation in try to determine if the weapon is real or not is 'too long' for the person holding the weapon and you are dead (shot) or seriously wounded/injured (pistol whipped) before you can make an accurate assessment.
jeremyp (see #118) would, in all probablilty, if the gun he was confronted with were real, be dead or seriously injured before he dialled the second 9.
-
I have a tiny toy gun :D, it is behind things in my medicine box. Never used it - yet. Beware! When I was a child I had a cap gun and a cowboy hat. Grown ups seemed to be more wary of water pistols, I wonder why.
Seriously, I would think Oscar Pistorius's ego has been seriously deflated, never to be inflated because, whatever happens, he is a big Hate Figure in South Africa now.
I find the report of him firing a gun in a restaurant, for no apparent reason, quite disturbing. It has nothing to do with his recent trial but, let's face it, it is a bizarre, never mind dangerous, thing to do. Makes me glad that, with some exceptions, owning firearms is illegal here.
A few years in prison will drastically change the man - even a few months changes someone so a long sentence will take its toll of him. Surely that's enough, he doesn't have much to come out to or look forward to, relationship-wife, money is a cold comfort, and nothing will bring back his ex-girlfriend.
Do you really think that he would want to come back? Should this actually happen, he is just as likely to find himself beaten to death with a pair of stlilletto heels!
-
Yours I presume Owlswing? ;)
No, atm I think he probably doesn't want to return to normal life because life will never be normal for him again. A few years down the line, if he is still alive, he may feel differently, However, I'm not in his mind, merely speculating.
-
Yours I presume Owlswing? ;)
No, atm I think he probably doesn't want to return to normal life because life will never be normal for him again. A few years down the line, if he is still alive, he may feel differently, However, I'm not in his mind, merely speculating.
Why mine?
You made the comment about "nothing will bring back his ex-girlfriend" - having been shot by the idiot I thought that upon her return revenge by stilletto would be probable!
-
If the guy is deemed mentally ill, as some are saying he is, he should be put in a secure unit in a psychiatric hospital until such time as he is deemed not a danger to the public.
He has a temper. If you subtract the gun from the equation in the restaurant incident and the murder, you have two incidents that are replayed countless times throughout the World every day with nobody going to prison or metal hospital.
There is no question that Pistorius can never again have access to firearms but to demonise him the way you do is pretty counterproductive IMO.
-
Oscar Pistorius has, in a TV interview, said Reeva Steenkamp, the girlfriend he killed, would not want him to spend his life in jail.
Opinions please
What if he is telling the truth that he really thought it was an intruder?
It was a trial by public as well as jury. Who really knows what went through his mind.
If he was innocent and did not know then prison would be like double sentence for him.
I really do not want to judge this one.
-
You don't shoot intruders you can't even see!
-
Sassy: It was a trial by public as well as jury. Who really knows what went through his mind.
It certainly was a trial by public which imo is grossly unfair, similar to what happens in American in high profile cases and I really hope we never have that here. However there wasn't a jury, different system altogether in SA. Quite agree we don't know what went through the man's mind.
Floo, we don't generally have legal firearms here but if we did, I bet you anything there would be cases of terrified people shooting in the dark at possible intruders, with some resultant casualties and even deaths.
-
Sassy: It was a trial by public as well as jury. Who really knows what went through his mind.
It certainly was a trial by public which imo is grossly unfair, similar to what happens in American in high profile cases and I really hope we never have that here. However there wasn't a jury, different system altogether in SA. Quite agree we don't know what went through the man's mind.
Floo, we don't generally have legal firearms here but if we did, I bet you anything there would be cases of terrified people shooting in the dark at possible intruders, with some resultant casualties and even deaths.
No doubt, thank goodness they are not legal for protection over here. However, where Pistorius is concerned I don't believe his cock and bull story for one second.
-
Thank goodness the law exists to protect us all from gut reactions and vigilantes.
-
Pistorius was convicted of murder and should serve a long sentence, not the pat on the head he has received.
-
Floo, you are not a judge and you seem to be taking all this quite personally.
Six years is hardly a pat on the head and, who knows, he may not be alive by the end of his sentence, however long he serves. I'm not making a prediction just saying anything is possible.
The law and those who implement it have to be above personal feelings and I for one am glad that's how it is.
-
Floo, you are not a judge and you seem to be taking all this quite personally.
Six years is hardly a pat on the head and, who knows, he may not be alive by the end of his sentence, however long he serves. I'm not making a prediction just saying anything is possible.
The law and those who implement it have to be above personal feelings and I for one am glad that's how it is.
Six years is PATHETIC, especially as he won't serve the full six years. If he isn't alive at the end of his sentence I certainly won't be crying any tears for him that is for sure!
-
What if he is telling the truth that he really thought it was an intruder?
Still murder.
If he was innocent and did not know then prison would be like double sentence for him.
He shot at a person through a door with no justification. That's murder.
-
As has been said before, if Pistorius hadn't been a famous athlete we would never have heard of his crime, and he probably would have been convicted of murder first time around, and give the appropriate sentence of at least 15 years.
-
Still murder.
Have to prove intent to murder her in South Africa. The way he tells it, he had no intention of murdering her because he did not know it was her.
He shot at a person through a door with no justification. That's murder.
But the person he thought to be an intruder he did intend to shoot. But who knows what the reality is?
We are not judge and jury and we are not able to know if he did it intentionally. Reasonable doubt.
-
Of course there is no reasonable doubt, he did the crime, end of!
-
Of course there is no reasonable doubt, he did the crime, end of!
Again get someone to explain it to you...
INTENT to kill HER cannot proved. ONLY INTENT TO KILL INTRUDER.
They do not amount to the same thing.
Do you ever really take in what is actually written. Of course not the forest of pride and prejudice too well established and has choked out reason and sense.
-
Flogging-dead-horse, banging-head-against-wall smilies needed.
Floo you are loving every minute of this, that is obvious.
-
Have to prove intent to murder her in South Africa. The way he tells it, he had no intention of murdering her because he did not know it was her.
No Sassy, he shot at a person through a door. It doesn't matter that he didn't know who the person was, there was intent to kill that person.
But the person he thought to be an intruder he did intend to shoot. But who knows what the reality is?
We are not judge and jury and we are not able to know if he did it intentionally. Reasonable doubt.
He intended to shoot a person, then he shot that person with no justification. It's murder. The South African courts seem to agree with me, not you.
-
Again get someone to explain it to you...
INTENT to kill HER cannot proved. ONLY INTENT TO KILL INTRUDER.
They do not amount to the same thing.
Why not?
The person is just as dead whether Pistorius thought it was his partner or not.
-
Do you ever really take in what is actually written.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
::)
-
Flogging-dead-horse, banging-head-against-wall smilies needed.
Floo you are loving every minute of this, that is obvious.
Ehhhhhhhhhhhh? What a daft thing to say, the whole situation is beyond tragic where Reeva's family is concerned.
-
It was an interesting case, as the judge originally argued that the prosecution had to show intent to kill on P's part, very difficult of course. But she was over-ruled, and her views seem very technical, since she ignored the fact that he 'must have foreseen the death of anyone in the toilet'. Their identity is irrelevant of course.
-
It was an interesting case, as the judge originally argued that the prosecution had to show intent to kill on P's part, very difficult of course.
Very easy actually, he fired a gun into a door knowing there was a human being on the other side of it. Case closed.
-
Very easy actually, he fired a gun into a door knowing there was a human being on the other side of it. Case closed.
I think that's an inference of intent to kill, not a demonstration of it. In fact, that's the ruling of the higher court, as they put it, 'he should have known, therefore he must have known, that somebody could die'. But the judge had disagreed with this, on the grounds that it's purely inferential, and does not show his actual intent. But then that is often impractical or impossible, since we're not mind-readers. So 'should have, therefore must have' is accepted in many jurisdictions. But S. Africa has the dolus eventualis rule, which complicates it.
-
I think that's an inference of intent to kill, not a demonstration of it.
In any situation involving a gun, firing it at a person should be taken as intent to kill.
In fact, that's the ruling of the higher court, as they put it, 'he should have known, therefore he must have known, that somebody could die'.
No reasonable person would fire a gun into a door with somebody else on the other side in the expectation of not killing them.
-
In any situation involving a gun, firing it at a person should be taken as intent to kill.
No reasonable person would fire a gun into a door with somebody else on the other side in the expectation of not killing them.
Well, 'should be taken as' is an inference. Normally it holds, but as you say, this is true of reasonable people. My neighbour killed a burglar and was done for manslaughter, on the grounds of diminished responsibility.
The higher court used the formulation, 'he should have known it could kill, therefore he must have known, therefore he did know', and this is what the judge had objected to.
In parts of the US, I wonder if P would have got off completely, on the grounds of castle doctrine - you can shoot an intruder. I don't know.
-
Well, 'should be taken as' is an inference. Normally it holds, but as you say, this is true of reasonable people. My neighbour killed a burglar and was done for manslaughter, on the grounds of diminished responsibility.
. . .
I think what he should have done is to have claimed that 'he wasn't wearing his glasses' but was pretty sure that the man was armed and therefore an immediate threat to his life and (possibly) the life of his family.
-
I think what he should have done is to have claimed that 'he wasn't wearing his glasses' but was pretty sure that the man was armed and therefore an immediate threat to his life and (possibly) the life of his family.
You think he should have lied under oath.
-
You think he should have lied under oath.
Each individual is the only being in the universe who actually know what they perceive, so how could it be a lie?
-
Each individual is the only being in the universe who actually know what they perceive, so how could it be a lie?
Because he didn't see an intruder and so how could he say he was pretty sure he was armed? He has said that he feared for his and Reeva's safety and that there might be an armed intruder in the house but to say he was pretty sure there was an armed intruder would surely be a lie. Where does his lack of glasses help? If his eye sight meant he couldn't see clearly how could he say he was pretty sure of an armed intruder? To have taken the line you suggest would have been ripped to shreds by the prosecution I would suggest.