Oscar Pistorius

walkingbootweather

Let's face it, if you had an intruder in your toilet what would you have to go on?

davmaggs

Firing through the door wasn't going to be aimed shots, how would they?

In terms of aiming at legs, that is a Hollywood invention repeated by fools. Hitting anything with a pistol is hard enough in nicely lit ranges, and even close up accuracy isn't great for the average punter. The shooter would aim for the centre of mass (the big bit).

rick_chasey

walkingbootweather wrote:

Let's face it, if you had an intruder in your toilet what would you have to go on?

Strapon and a gimp mask?

il_principe

DonDaddyD wrote:

Il Principe wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

The above was what I was going to say.

He also didn't have to aim for the head (assuming he shot her in the head is accurate). To be honest his defence seems implausible... she was in the bathroom and he thought it was an intruder? So, and without any identifiable threat (i.e. mad person coming at you - because he'd be able to see that it was his girlfriend in those circumstances), and before identifying the person, he shot them three times - without an intention to kill.

Two things:

1: He shot through a closed door - so not sure how he could aim at anything other than, erm, the door.

When aming at someone behind a door I'm going to assume the person is standing therefore unless I want a headshot I'm going to point the downwards or crouch and aim for where I hope there legs will be...

2: I think you are wildy over-estimating how accurate a (possibly panicking) civilian is likely to be with a handgun...

This is assuming he was panicking. He didn't see an intruder, the intruder couldn't have possibly have threatened him because there wasn't one. He claims to have thought it was an intruder so unloaded 3 slugs through a door. I'm not sure where panic starts to take hold.

If I was getting shot at I'd imagine I'd duck down, not stand up... that's a fairly instinctive reaction. And as I and others have pointed out, 'aiming' with a pistol is not the easiest thing.

Also no one expcet Oscar know what really happened soyou can't really say things like 'the intruder couldn't have possibly have threatened him because there wasn't one'

I doubt we'll ever know what really happened.

jzed

Il Principe wrote:

2: I think you are wildy over-estimating how accurate a (possibly panicking) civilian is likely to be with a handgun...

I though Pistorius was reported to spend time at shooting ranges and be a gun enthusiast.

greg66_tri_v2.0

The Beeb is now reporting that Police found contianers of testosterone and needles in Oscar's bedroom.

The curse of Nike is strong in this one...

rolf_f

I think he's a bit doomed if he is resorting to the 'mistaken identify thing'.

"I thought I was being burgled - the burgler locked himself in the bathroom in an aggressive manner so I shot him 4 times through the door" - I mean, why would you do that? Was Pistorius on a water meter and scared that the burgler would keep flushing his toilet thereby increasing his water bill to a dangerous level? Someone who has locked themselves in a bathroom cannot be a threat to you.

bompington

I think maybe that people who haven't experienced what it's like to live with the horrific levels of violent crime in SA should think a bit more before speculating what someone would or wouldn't do when waking in a panic thinking there's an intruder in the house. Remember that this is a country where it's legal to use lethal force in self-defence, and entirely culturally acceptable too..
Yes, of course, it may be that the whole intruder thing is just a defence ploy, but if Pistorious did genuinely think there was an intrusion, then almost any reaction is plausible, even if not all reactions are excusable, either morally or legally.

clarkey cat

bompington wrote:

I think maybe that people who haven't experienced what it's like to live with the horrific levels of violent crime in SA should think a bit more before speculating what someone would or wouldn't do when waking in a panic thinking there's an intruder in the house. Remember that this is a country where it's legal to use lethal force in self-defence, and entirely culturally acceptable too..
Yes, of course, it may be that the whole intruder thing is just a defence ploy, but if Pistorious did genuinely think there was an intrusion, then almost any reaction is plausible, even if not all reactions are excusable, either morally or legally.

gr8 post

DonDaddyD

Il Principe wrote:

If I was getting shot at I'd imagine I'd duck down, not stand up... that's a fairly instinctive reaction. And as I and others have pointed out, 'aiming' with a pistol is not the easiest thing.

He shot four times at a door. I admit I don't know what bullet in the sequence hit his girlfriend or at what height the gun was shot at. But if it was shot from a standing position - one could speculate that he shot to kill.

Also no one expcet Oscar know what really happened soyou can't really say things like 'the intruder couldn't have possibly have threatened him because there wasn't one'

Was there an intruder in his house or was it his girlfriend? So how could he have been threatend in a house with no intruder? How could he have been that threatend if he had yet to see any intruder of anykind?

There has been no indication that anyone else was in the property other than him and his girlfriend.

cyclingprop

What my parents didn't tell me when we moved to Joburg in 95 was that one of the neighbours was shot dead for his car, on his drive the week before we moved in.

And at age 11 I slept safe in the knowledge that I had a golf club at easy reach should I need it. That is how bad it was 18 years ago...

Captain Slackbladder

vermin wrote:

Wasn't it reported that she was shot in the head and arm? He was probably aiming for the head and shoulders.

That doesn't wash with me....

This trial will have a touch of the OJ's about it imo....in that he'll be acquitted one way or another.

il_principe

DonDaddyD wrote:

Il Principe wrote:

If I was getting shot at I'd imagine I'd duck down, not stand up... that's a fairly instinctive reaction. And as I and others have pointed out, 'aiming' with a pistol is not the easiest thing.

He shot four times at a door. I admit I don't know what bullet in the sequence hit his girlfriend or at what height the gun was shot at. But if it was shot from a standing position - one could speculate that he shot to kill.

Also no one expcet Oscar know what really happened soyou can't really say things like 'the intruder couldn't have possibly have threatened him because there wasn't one'

Was there an intruder in his house or was it his girlfriend? So how could he have been threatend in a house with no intruder? How could he have been that threatend if he had yet to see any intruder of anykind?

There has been no indication that anyone else was in the property other than him and his girlfriend.

*Bangs head against wall* We don't know what happened. He may have thought there was an intruder, he may deliberately have shot his girlfriend, but we don't know. Sheesh.

FWIW - My Godmother lives in SA. Her sons lived together at uni in Cape Town. One night they were woken up by intruders who had climbed in through an unsecured bathroom window. They and their girlfriends were threatened at gunpoint, tied-up and then robbed. My old boss was robbed at gunpoint in the street in Cape Town in the middle of the day. There are a lot of home invasions there. Pistorious' bathroom is reported to have had a window. Whilst I have a little trouble swallowing his story, it is not inconceivable.

il_principe

Captain Slackbladder wrote:

vermin wrote:

Wasn't it reported that she was shot in the head and arm? He was probably aiming for the head and shoulders.

That doesn't wash with me....

This trial will have a touch of the OJ's about it imo....in that he'll be acquitted one way or another.

It's going to be very hard to prove 'beyond reasonable doubt' either way isn't it? I wouldn't want to be on that jury*

*assuming here that the SA system is similar to ours!

tailwindhome

DonDaddyD wrote:

I admit I don't know ....

This

Sewinman

I think its actually legal in SA to defend yourself with legal force. So as long as they stick with the intruder story he could well get off..

rolf_f

Il Principe wrote:

Pistorious' bathroom is reported to have had a window. Whilst I have a little trouble swallowing his story, it is not inconceivable.

But did your Godmother live in a compound surrounded by "giant walls and electrified fences" - possibly with security guards as well though that seems a bit unclear.

I think Pistorius story is really is pretty inconceivable; apart from anything else, she has to say absolutely nothing. If his story is true, she had only to say one word to stop being shot.

UndercoverElephant

Sewinman wrote:

I think its actually legal in SA to defend yourself with legal force. So as long as they stick with the intruder story he could well get off..

It's legal in a lot of countries to use legal force in most situations.

bigmat

My take on this? The defence argument sounds about as credible as Steakgate. Of course my official line is that we can't possibly know what happened, so we shouldn't start jumping to conclusions.

TheStone

BigMat wrote:

My take on this? The defence argument sounds about as credible as Steakgate. Of course my official line is that we can't possibly know what happened, so we shouldn't start jumping to conclusions.

No way. Steakgate was way more credible.

Sewinman

UndercoverElephant wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

I think its actually legal in SA to defend yourself with legal force. So as long as they stick with the intruder story he could well get off..

It's legal in a lot of countries to use legal force in most situations.

Oops, Obvs meant 'lethal'.

rjsterry

Rolf F wrote:

Il Principe wrote:

Pistorious' bathroom is reported to have had a window. Whilst I have a little trouble swallowing his story, it is not inconceivable.

But did your Godmother live in a compound surrounded by "giant walls and electrified fences" - possibly with security guards as well though that seems a bit unclear.

I think Pistorius story is really is pretty inconceivable; apart from anything else, she has to say absolutely nothing. If his story is true, she had only to say one word to stop being shot.

IIRC there have been break-ins within the compound previously - within the last 2 years, I think. Have you even read a precis of his statement, or the prosecution's case? And this is only the bail hearing; they haven't even started the trial yet.

corriebee1

I've been reading the Guardian live updates on it all day. The defence line is pretty much trying to discredit the police officer, and cloud the evidence as much as possible. As far as I can see it, their sole piece of evidence is that she had an empty bladder!

As far as I can see from today's evidence:
She was clothed, not ready for bed (or for getting up to go to the loo).
When police arrived at the scene, the only people there were his LAWYER, and his brother
She was shot in the side of the head and the side of her body, in the wrong part of the bathroom (although one the empty shells mysteriously ended up in the loo)
4 phones were found on site (2 iphones were in the BATHROOM (?!)). None of them had been used to call police. The phone that WAS used to phone the police was taken away from the scene.

That is of course just my viewing of today's reports and he is of course innocent until his very expensive lawyer can prove him so. :shock:

rolf_f

rjsterry wrote:

IIRC there have been break-ins within the compound previously - within the last 2 years, I think. Have you even read a precis of his statement, or the prosecution's case? And this is only the bail hearing; they haven't even started the trial yet.

Not heard any mention of other break ins but of course that could be possible. As for his statement - as far as i understand it, he heard a noise in the bathroom whilst lying in bed, asleep with his girlfriend and then fired shots into the bathroom without bothering to check whether she was next to him. I think anyone, even in a violent country like SA, on hearing a noise in the bathroom will first assume that it is their partner. They might then turn their head a few degrees to see that their partner is infact still next to them.

Now, personally, I think even if your partner was next to you, and you suspected someone else to be in the bathroom, that you'd probably say something before shooting. What you wouldn't do is start firing blind through doors, without any warning, given that (obviously) you are perfectly aware your partner isn't still in bed. Because, if you love someone, and suspect that a potential violent robber is in the house, the one thing you surely do is bother to just turn your head to see if that person is safely with you (because if they are not, then clearly they are somewhere else - eg in the bathroom) and perhaps suggest that they hide under the bed or phone the police or something. Or do you not even check they are there and get up and start firing randomly through doors.

TBH, if the story is exactly as he gave it, he needs to be locked up anyway. Someone who acts like that isn't safe to the public.

corriebee1

Rolf F wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

IIRC there have been break-ins within the compound previously - within the last 2 years, I think. Have you even read a precis of his statement, or the prosecution's case? And this is only the bail hearing; they haven't even started the trial yet.

Not heard any mention of other break ins but of course that could be possible. As for his statement - as far as i understand it, he heard a noise in the bathroom whilst lying in bed, asleep with his girlfriend and then fired shots into the bathroom without bothering to check whether she was next to him. I think anyone, even in a violent country like SA, on hearing a noise in the bathroom will first assume that it is their partner. They might then turn their head a few degrees to see that their partner is infact still next to them.

Now, personally, I think even if your partner was next to you, and you suspected someone else to be in the bathroom, that you'd probably say something before shooting. What you wouldn't do is start firing blind through doors, without any warning, given that (obviously) you are perfectly aware your partner isn't still in bed. Because, if you love someone, and suspect that a potential violent robber is in the house, the one thing you surely do is bother to just turn your head to see if that person is safely with you (because if they are not, then clearly they are somewhere else - eg in the bathroom) and perhaps suggest that they hide under the bed or phone the police or something. Or do you not even check they are there and get up and start firing randomly through doors.

TBH, if the story is exactly as he gave it, he needs to be locked up anyway. Someone who acts like that isn't safe to the public.

That ^^^ Plus all the stuff i wrote = A fairly probably conclusion. Whether or not the courts will have the power to do anything about it, or the lawyers (first responders nowadays) manage to get past "reasonable doubt" remains to be seen. I find it pretty incredible that anyone can review the evidence that we have seen THUS FAR and still believe that it was all just a bit of an accident!

(PS. Innocent til proven guilty, and all that! Allegedly!)

il_principe

Aside from the fact that Rolf's piece is wrong - OP is not claiming he was in bed at the time...

rjsterry

Rolf F wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

IIRC there have been break-ins within the compound previously - within the last 2 years, I think. Have you even read a precis of his statement, or the prosecution's case? And this is only the bail hearing; they haven't even started the trial yet.

Not heard any mention of other break ins but of course that could be possible. As for his statement - as far as i understand it, he heard a noise in the bathroom whilst lying in bed, asleep with his girlfriend and then fired shots ...

That's not what his statement said. Now obviously that's his version, but the prosecution's case doesn't look that watertight either. They seem to be extrapolating quite a lot from very little evidence.

gtvlusso

Would you shoot blind, at night, through the closed door to a bathroom knowing that your better half was in the house, somewhere?

Assuming there was no other exit from the bathroom, there rarely is! Why not just wait for the 'burglar' to open the door (hoping that said intruder has flushed) and then nail the fecker.....

He is enough of a gun toter to know that the calibre of pistol he fired had enough 'guts' to get through the door in the first place.....

Most burglars would probably tell you that using the loo during a house raid is not a good idea.....

From my media biased view, the outlook does not look good......

Dope, Murder, Sweatshops All in a days work fror Nike!! Nike' sponsorship marketing team must be bricking it! I don't think that the Mafia managed to finance all of that!

il_principe

rjsterry wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

IIRC there have been break-ins within the compound previously - within the last 2 years, I think. Have you even read a precis of his statement, or the prosecution's case? And this is only the bail hearing; they haven't even started the trial yet.

Not heard any mention of other break ins but of course that could be possible. As for his statement - as far as i understand it, he heard a noise in the bathroom whilst lying in bed, asleep with his girlfriend and then fired shots ...

That's not what his statement said. Now obviously that's his version, but the prosecution's case doesn't look that watertight either. They seem to be extrapolating quite a lot from very little evidence.

Yep, from what I've read the defence did a pretty good job on the police today. However, people seem to be forgetting that this is merely a bail hearing rather than a trial...

rjsterry

Quite. The prosecution have implied that they have more that they can't reveal at present. Some pretty shocking holes in the police evidence so far: I found testosterone and needles - It wasn't testosterone - oh, I'm not sure, I didn't read the label.