Pistorius - is this man sane

[Brownie]

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.

[Maeght]

Very good post Brownie - sums up my thoughts too.

[floo]

It is Reeva Steencamp's family for whom we should have sympathy not Pistorius, imo.

[Enki]

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.

[floo]

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!

[Maeght]

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?

[jeremyp]

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.

[Maeght]

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?

[jeremyp]

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.

[floo]

Agreed. Does that make him an evil murderer?

Yes because he meant to harm the person behind the door, he shot more than once.

[Brownie]

I don't know how anyone can think themselves into someone else's mind.
Anyway there's not much we can do about it.

[Maeght]

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.

[floo]

Pistorius did the crime so he must do the time, and plenty of it I hope.

[Brownie]

Did you watch the TV interview floo?

[Maeght]

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.

[Brownie]

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.

[Maeght]

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.

[Owlswing]

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

[floo]

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.

[Maeght]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[BeRational]

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.

[Brownie]

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.

[BeRational]

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.

[floo]

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.