Oscar pistorius

[spiderbabymum]

Heard the news this am

I'm just Devastated for him and his family and partners family

arguing against

I havent seen those comments about anyone wanting him to rot in prison, just see justice for Reeva, although it seems as though it will come down to technicalities as to what the outcome will be, I agree with the having to live with it though, although some people manage to live with their actions better than others.

There`ll always be people who think hes innocent and people who believe him to be guilty, thats just human nature.

Personally I think if they are unable to establish murder then at the very best he is guilty of a voluntary manslaughter which should carry an equivalent sentence.

Having made the bizarre leap of imagination that person in the bathroom was more likely to be an intruder who had broken into his guarded estate than the woman who was already in the apartment, he chose to fire 4 shots into an enclosed space through a closed door with the reasonable expectation of killing that person, all the while having apparently failed to ascertain who he was shooting at or what their intentions might have been.

I think that shows a level of criminal recklessness which suggests the public would be safer if this trigger happy man were kept off the streets. He clearly cannot be trusted to act in a way that doesn't pose a huge threat to the people around him.

'I think that shows a level of criminal recklessness which suggests the public would be safer if this trigger happy man were kept off the streets. He clearly cannot be trusted to act in a way that doesn't pose a huge threat to the people around him.'

Well put.

If it was a tragic accident he should not be imprisoned IMO

His actions may not have been intended to kill Reeva, however they were intended to kill someone!! There can't be any much doubt about his intent to kill or cause GBH even at this stage.

That's murder unless he can prove he acted in self defence - which must be extremely difficult as there was no intruder and no actual threat to him at all.

Based on your facts lougle, shooting a person behind a closed door who is no threat to you.........well.....does it even matter who he knew thought was there......he shot with intent to kill.
He says there was an intruder.....who presented no risk that he describes.

I do wonder about people who are so vicious when someone expresses an opinion they don't agree with. I have been quite clear it's my opinion that he's lying. Others can believe what they like but I've seen no evidence that convinces me that this isn't a deliberate murder.

"The facts:
Oscar Pistorius fired shots at shortly after 3am into the toilet cubicle.
Reeva was in the cubicle
Reeva died

That's the facts.

The rest is reliant on either forensics or Oscar Pistorius' accounts"

Lougle - all your posts seem to jump in to defend him them and are not neutral like these facts you put up.

I like to read all folks' perspectives.

I think this is a young man who is going through a living hell. I have a sneaking suspicion his actions will torment him through out his living days. I for some reason don't want to see him behind bars for the next 15 or 25 years . I so hope some good comes out of this for society ,gun laws etc and don't quite see how destroying another young life will help this

I have to say I'm stunned that anyone thinks he shouldn´t go to prison if it was a "tragic accident".

indeed Bluegrass and animation which is why I don't think he should get bail.

The prosecution have been on the same lines just now...........even on his own account, he shot to kill, that's pre-meditated murder. And he has wimped out by only providing an affidavit when he could have taken the stand.

mary21 the remorse and 'living hell' of a criminal is something to be considered at a parole hearing, rather than at their initial trial.

I bet loads of men who hurt/maim/kill women weep and wail afterwards and claim their lives have been ruined by their actions, they they have suffered a loss. This is no doubt true.

It really doesn't diminish what they did.

This is hard for people to swallow as only a matter of days ago the guy was an internationally famous sports HERO. We're all admiring him and looking up to him. Should your unwillingness to face what he has done (and I'm simply talking about "fired shots at shortly after 3am into the toilet cubicle. Reeva was in the cubicle, Reeva died") have any bearing on anything at all? No of course not.

And he has wimped out - or alternatively, he may have taken his advocate's professional advice?

I'm pretty much sat on the fence with respect to this case. I have spent time in SA and I know how easy it it to become paranoid about any sound at night, yet I am also struggling to not look at this from an 'England standards' POV.

I can see plausibility in certain aspect of each side's argument, but neither side have produced an entirely cohesive argument (early days, I know).

Right now, in the aftermath of yesterdays fiasco, I am not able to see justification for OP to be subjected to the inherent dangers of Pretoria Central for however long it takes the case to go to trial - how would the authorities keep him safe?

he has wimped out by only providing an affidavit when he could have taken the stand

I would think he's in no fit emotional or mental state to take the stand. He has just shot his GF after all. Whatever the truth is, he's going to be in a state of shock (unless he's a total socio-path & there's no evidence of that is there?). I don't think any lawyer would advise him to take the stand at this stage - remember its a bail hearing not a trial.

I don't know, diddl - If it was a 'tragic accident' in the sense that he was trying to protect Reeva (and himself) by removing the threat, or reducing it at the very least, then I think that's different to, say, a situation where there was no threat and he discharged his weapon.

This case is odd, because if he had shot into the toilet cubicle and in fact no-one had been in there (and Reeva asleep in bed as he thought), then there would be no charge of 'attempted murder' even though it is obvious that had he been right the 'intruder' would have been seriously maimed or even killed. It seems odd that because Reeva happened to be in there (if you believe his account of his assumptions, actions and motivations) turns this into 'murder'. It feels like there is a step missing.

If an intruder had been in the cubicle and found with a weapon, would he be charged with 'murder', or not charged, or charged with a lesser offence? Because where I struggle is that it seems he is not being (potentially) punished for his actions, but being wrong about who was in the cubicle.

Paranoia about crime is not justification for firing to kill on an unknown victim. In fact could be argued he's more of a danger to society.

So what would be the motive then for getting up in the middle of the night, waiting for your girlfriend to go to the toilet and then shooting her through the door and then claiming you thought it was an intruder?

That's the thing - I don't necessarily give any of his story any credence at all. Nobody knows they had even been asleep - we've only got OP's word for it.

For all we know, they could have been awake and arguing. She may have threatened to leave, he loses his temper, starts threatening her, she runs into the loo in fear, locks herself in and he shoots her through the door in a violent rage.

Then he makes up story of intruder that fits with the physical evidence in the room to cover his tracks. He wouldn't be the first man to murder his partner in a fit of rage and then be all tears afterwards.

We'll never know the truth for sure, because we can never hear Reeva's side of the story. But a woman is dead, and I don't buy his story at all. It's too

I wonder how OP's actions would be judged now if there had in fact been an intruder, but instead of the heavily armed murderer/rapist he apparently had in mind as he unloaded his gun it had turned out to be a small child who'd climbed through an open window. That seems an equally likely possibility, I have family in SA who've been burgled like this. In the face of an unarmed dead child would his actions look reasonable?

It's an interesting thought. Ultimately if we take him at his word he simply imagined a horrific threat behind that door and chose to kill it. It could have been anyone or anything but he shot and killed it without stopping to question them or warn them to stay in there with the threat that he would shoot if they came out.

I don't think extreme paranoia or fear is sufficient to excuse that behaviour. In fact if his paranoia and fear are so extreme that he shoots at the slightest noise in his home I think he might well need treatment, as long as it is carried out somewhere he can't hurt anyone.

"no evidence of domestic violence i.e. she had not been asalted physically in any way, the only harm to her was the gunshot wounds, so this discredits the theory that this was DV which escalated. The fact she was in a locked bathroom and had an empty bladder which is indicative of the fact she had in fact got up to go to the loo rather than that this was an argument which had escalated. So what would be the motive then for getting up in the middle of the night, waiting for your girlfriend to go to the toilet and then shooting her through the door and then claiming you thought it was an intruder?"

I don't suggest that it was DV in the sense that he was knocking her about. I suggest that it was a sudden outburst of rage.

We only have his word for everything that happened. We don't even know that they'd turned in for the night, they could still have been awake and talking or reading or watching TV - anything.

Suppose she went to the loo and while she was in there he sneaked a look at her emails or text messages? found something he didn't like, flew into a rage and lost it?

But, in SA it isn't paranoia, is it? It's reality.

without stopping to question them or warn them to stay in there with the threat that he would shoot if they came out.

Taking that course of action to it's logical conclusion, had it been an armed intruder SA could have been mourning the loss of a sporting icon...after the intruder shot through the door.

The entire situation is surrounded by what ifs and maybes and possibilities.

I have a friend from SA and I've been speaking to her over the last three years on an almost daily basis (we play an online game together and chat in that game). The stories she shares are unbelievable, and often I have to be filled in on 'the way SA is' to make head or tail of them.

For example, her children are 13 and 11 and never walk alone anywhere because it is just too dangerous. They don't go out at night. They don't even live in the worst areas.

I don't think we will ever know what really happened in that house.

I was horrified to see footage of his friends leaving court yesterday. One in particular left with a beaming smile plastered across his face and when asked how it was going, he replied with ....It was a good day for us in there today, a good/great day.

I'm absolutely thrilled silly Oscar and his friends reckon they had a great day for themselves. A woman is dead because of his actions. No more good days for her.

I would've thought even in SA you can't get away with shooting a houseguest through a bathroom door and then saying 'Duh...soz. Thought it was an intruder.'

Carte blanche for anyone to do away with their husband/wife/MIL with impunity, surely?

Schnarkle - I can't believe the callous disregard some people seem to have toward the violent death of a young woman. It's sickening.