OJ Pistorius gets away with murder

I will have to stay away from people whose name starts with O.

Maybe it was premeditated but proving it beyond reasonable doubt is pretty hard. Gun control wackos will be happy to have a case to point to of a legal gun causing a non-criminal death.
 
Joined
Apr 10, 2011
Messages
777
Really? Were you there in person to see what happened? :)
Exactly! As the trial judge pointed out in her verdict "state had failed to prove he intended to kill".
 
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
4,721
Really? Were you there in person to see what happened? :)

No, but I do have a brain. Unlike Reeva I might add, whose brain was last seen splattered on her toilet and bathroom floor as she was shot in the head and other places by OJ-Pee

His shooting of her was not premediated, I never said it was. However he was under the influence of 'roid rage', a chemical imbalance caused in the mind due to steroid use and other factors. His history of anger proves this. He should have realized this, and not carried guns within easy reach. Ever.

Thus he is in fact responsible for Reeva's death. 4 years in a comfy cell, if he even gets that, won't be near enough. He should be hanged/executed for taking a life, and for causing Reeva's parents untold grief which they will have to live with the rest of their lives.

Reeva may have spread her legs for anyone with fame and money like a cheap whore, even if said person is only half a human missing 2 legs as he is, but that doesn't mean she had to be shot to death for it. (Stoning is another argument entirely, which is now moot as she is dead. Plus South Africa is not under Sharia Law yet, so that would not be legal too.)
 
Joined
Dec 16, 2010
Messages
203
This is the problem with 'trial by media' ... we don't get all of the facts, and certainly not all of the 'legally admissible' information.

Do I personally think that there is more to the story and that he is likely getting off pretty lightly, and that some of it has to do with his position (sports hero, missing limbs, etc) ... ? Yes.

But does any of that matter in a court of law? No.

The thing for me is that none of it brings back the poor dead girl, and vengeance is a very dark and vindictive reason for meting out punishment. I find it hard to say with any certainty that 'beyond a reasonable doubt' he is guilty. So perhaps justice WAS served?

Like JDR said from the beginning ... only two people know for sure, and neither is talking, and one never will.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
14,953
Actually, Andhaira is being quite reasonable (with the exception of the last paragraph). Pistorius is a piece of shit. There was absolutely no reason in hell for that woman's death. Take a moment to contemplate your feelings if this were your daughter.

The state might not have been able to "prove" that the murder was premeditated, but that doesn't change the fact that no reasonable person would have blasted through a closed bathroom door without checking the location of the other residents of the household. I do keep a loaded Glock in my nightstand, but the idea of randomly shooting through the doors of my house is utterly absurd.
 
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
256
If you're ever in doubt as to why the human race is having problems when it comes to understanding and knowledge, all you need to do is read bullshit like this "psychic" insight based on media outlets.

It's a good thing I'm a fan of irony, or I'd probably find it tremendously sad when people take it upon themselves to judge strangers based on exactly zero factual knowledge, apparently convinced that their perception of events unwitnessed is flawless and precise.
 
If you're ever in doubt as to why the human race is having problems when it comes to understanding and knowledge, all you need to do is read bullshit like this "psychic" insight based on media outlets.

It's a good thing I'm a fan of irony, or I'd probably find it tremendously sad when people take it upon themselves to judge strangers based on exactly zero factual knowledge, apparently convinced that their perception of events unwitnessed is flawless and precise.

What 'zero factual knowledge'? The following things are facts:

-Pistorius shot 4 bullets through his bathroom door killing Reeva
-Pistorius has a history of bursts of anger
-Pistorius conceal carries a gun many times when he goes out...
-...I am not challenging the fact that being a developing nation along with it's history of apartheid as well as Pistorius's status as a celebrity figure & a disabled individual can make him a target for harassment, people begging/threatening him for money, etc. But a developing nation also has cheap labor, and that coupled with his income means Pistorius can easily hire round the clock bodyguards to keep the riff raff away. Also note there is no factual evidence that I know off which states Pistoius had ever been seriously threatened or harassed. In fact, the opposite is true, with Pistorius threatening/blowing up on individuals for slights that did not involve any violence on their part or even the threat of it.
-Pistorius comes from a broken home with abusive parents. Couple the emotional trauma of that with his disability, gaining world wide success and fame and money at a young age and then add chemicals like steroids (which he took for performance enhancement, simply because all top tier and lower tier athletes take them to even the field i.e. because everyone else takes them) and you have the potential makings of a mentally unstable cocktail.

Going through the events of the night from all perspectives, the actions of Pistorius do fit someone who acted in a spurt of extreme rage and impulsiveness. Had he not had a gun nearby, nothing major would have happened (in fact I believe Reeva locked herself in the bathroom precisely because OJ-Pee was probably going ballistic and smacked her or threatened to do something like that). Unfortunately the availability of a loaded gun nearby escalated the situation to a murder.

Pistorius's allegations of a robbery and his reactions don't make fucking sense from any perspective. His collection of guns had, IMO little to do with self defense, and more to do with being a gun nut and also having something to prove to himself. (i.e. feelings of insecurity due to being disabled. This is quite normal, many young people who are completely healthy go through such phases, having a gun or training in self defense gives them confidence and increases their sense of self worth, among other things )

Finally, his reactions in the courtroom, the sobbing and the vomiting are classic indicators of immense guilt. It is not acting, he is indeed horribly sorry for what he did, because he knows exactly what he did: He lost control and killed someone he really did like a lot and who liked him too.

It's very sad, because I am sure he never intended for this to happen. But it did, and he needs to pay the price for it. If not for Reeva's sake then for her family and loved ones who will have to live with this for what remains of their own lives. In fact IMO execution would be merciful for him too, even though he may not know it, because he will have to live with guilt for the rest of his life. I doubt he will ever win a real competition again, assuming he does ever compete. Just like Tiger Woods never came back to his peak form after his domestic violence issue.

Even many people who die in natural disasters like earthquakes or freak fires or tornadoes don't deserve it; the hundreds of folk on the two Malaysian Flights didn't deserve what happened to them, but it did. Life is not fair.
 
Joined
Dec 16, 2010
Messages
203
Again, there are people who consider "facts" as they're presented to them, through the media, actual facts - and there are people who realise that these things are based on human interpretation of events that they weren't there to witness, and human delivery of these "facts".

If you feel comfortable judging people based on what you hear - instead of what you actually know - that's you. It's not "right" or "wrong" - it's just you.
 
By all means, D'Artagnan, if you can find any credible source of information contradicting the claim that he shot several bullets through his closed bathroom door, causing the death of his girlfriend, then I'd love to see it. That's all the evidence I need to realize that this guy is about six beers short of a six-pack. Your mileage may vary…
 
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
256
No need to repeat that you have all that you need. Personally, I'm not motivated to condemn or exempt strangers, so I don't go seeking evidence for or against their guilt.

If I did feel the need to pass judgment, I'd need first-hand knowledge - as I'm the sort of person who needs to feel I actually know something before I claim insight with such a serious implication.
 
He admitted that part openly in court. Of course in south africa crime is beyond bonkers and if you are white you might be boiled alive as well as robbed, so that is the only thing I can think of to justify such a paranoid response.

Like I said though, adding up to an obvious conclusion is not quite the same as proving it. Shooting his gf in a fight is still not much of an increase in punishment, only if he went to premeditated murder would it dramatically change things.
 
Joined
Apr 10, 2011
Messages
777
By all means, D'Artagnan, if you can find any credible source of information contradicting the claim that he shot several bullets through his closed bathroom door, causing the death of his girlfriend, then I'd love to see it. That's all the evidence I need to realize that this guy is about six beers short of a six-pack. Your mileage may vary…

But you equate those details with the 100% correctness of a finding of premeditated murder as the only possible reasoning. As many of us have said ... there is often much more to the story, and the exact legal standing of all elements in a country where I do not live, have never visited, and certainly have not studied law ... well, is unknown to me.

Regardless ... none of it brings back the poor girl.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
14,953
It is certainly extremely unfortunate that the state attorney could not remove the last tiny fractions of doubt.
Due to these last fractions of doubt, the verdict is unfortunately correct in so far as Pistorius did not get convicted for murder. He should have, however, been convicted for homicide.
I can not possibly follow the judge's reasoning for negligent homicide or involuntary manslaughter.
OP shot four times through a closed door at an angle where he must have known that if anyone was behind that door, that person would suffer fatal injuries, also due to the Black Talon ammo.
That's the very definition of dolus eventualis if I've ever seen one. Not sure what the judge was smoking when she ruled that Pistorius was not at least accepting the possibility of fatal injuries.

With that said, Pistorius' version is bullshit to anyone with any common sense. So he got up in the middle of the night to move some fans from the balcony to the inside of his apartment. OK.
Next he hears some noise in the bathroom and thinks it's a burglar. So he goes inside, grabs the gun from his side of the bed (which is closer to the balcony) and then with what must have been complete tunnel vision moves past his sleeping partner into the hallway, into the bathroom and then shoots four times through the closed toilet door.
Right.
How come he did not notice that Reeva's side of the bed was empty when he retrieved his gun and had to actually move past her to get to the hallway?
Why was Reeva Steenkamp found half-dressed in the toilet? Did she always get dressed up when she went to the toilet at night? And why did she have her cell phone with her?
Why didn't Pistorius push a panic button or call the police? Why didn't he first check on and gently wake up Reeva to make her call the police while he went to secure the hallway with his gun?
Why did ear witnesses hear a woman and a man screaming? Because Oscar sounds like a girl when he's upset? Riiiiiiiiiight.
The defense made up all sorts of bullshit reasons to explain stuff like that and unfortunately the attorney could not prove them 100% wrong, only 99.99…..%.

Oh well, the only comforting thought for me is that Pistorius is the kind of person who might have gotten away this time but there will be another time when he's not so lucky and the state attorney will be able to nail him.
Given his unstable character, it shouldn't take too long before he is provoked again or feels provoked again and does something stupid enough to really get him behind bars for a long time.
I mean he didn't even manage to control himself for the duration of the trial, fully knowing that he was under extreme public scrutiny so, excluding possible jail time, I'm giving it only a couple of years before he "does it again". Or maybe he kills someone in jail. We'll see. Trouble is preprogrammed with this joker.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
3,201
Why does anyone care? Is it because of his name? If it is because you think someone got away with murder then why this case. Didn't follow it, heard of it and could careless any out come of it. Way more things in my life to care about.
 
Joined
Apr 2, 2011
Messages
3,381
Why does anyone care? Is it because of his name? If it is because you think someone got away with murder then why this case. Didn't follow it, heard of it and could careless any out come of it. Way more things in my life to care about.

That's a wonderful attitude. If a member of your family is brutally murdered, then your perspective just might change. I don't give much of a shit about athletes, movie stars, and the like, but I do care about people getting murdered by psychos. I don't need to know the victims personally to actually care. There is this little thing called empathy, which you clearly lack.

P.S. I understand that they couldn't prove that it was premeditated, but there is often a huge distinction between justice and law. This case is just another example of that divide.
 
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
256
That's a wonderful attitude. If a member of your family is brutally murdered, then your perspective just might change..

That is my point completely, I care more about my family then some Kangaroo court pasted all over all the media forms. So I don't think my perspective needs to change, I just don't care about some case they want to dangle in front of the masses and try and tell us it matters.

There seems to be some thought in free countries that there is justice just because there are laws. My belief is no matter how many law's people that claim to be smarter than most make, there still will never be any true justice.

I live in Canada thankfully but about 4-5 hours from Detroit so it is easy to get news from there. Here is a headline from June 27th/14 " 6 Murders, 9 Shootings In Detroit Over 24 Hours".

World news? National news? or just lucky it made the paper at all. So in short I don't need one of my family members "brutally murder" as you so kindly put it to change my mind. I need to see some huge changes in the world to change my mind.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Apr 2, 2011
Messages
3,381
Couple of things:
1- SA legal system is based on British one with "beyond reasonable doubts" standards of evidence.
2- Some posters here seems to be under the false impression that law=justice.
 
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
4,721
Back
Top Bottom