Discussion in 'Other Sports' started by skatefan, Feb 14, 2013.
No one is saying that. My post was based on the report that he was being tested.
Several other posts have suggested it, including the one right before yours by Wiery.
Necessary, no, but it would certainly help explain how a seemingly otherwise rational person could have become so enraged as to bludgeon someone (as alleged) and then proceed to shoot her several times after she had apparently tried to barricade herself in the bathroom (again, as alleged). Especially when the victim had just been posting tweets that suggest that they had a loving relationship.
Re: why they wouldn't use involuntary manslaughter instead of culpable homicide as a charge - from what I can see in a brief review of South African criminal law, the elements of involuntary manslaughter are death caused by the perpetrating of an event that a reasonable person would be diligent/not neglectful enough to commit, and the rest are considered pure accidents or culpable homicide (murder), which includes premeditation and those where people are active in committing the act but perhaps not thinking of the full circumstance ("voluntary" as opposed to "involuntary").
There is nothing in between in South African law which formally contemplates extreme emotional states, and as such the part-defence of provocation (which exists in Canada, not sure about elsewhere) which can mitigate a charge of murder to manslaughter (because the intent component for a murder is theoretically not formable when one is in an uncontrollable rage) may be raised in court but again, it would result in a conviction on the lesser as opposed to the greater charge.
Also, with regards to why someone wouldn't "commit suicide" in this event or that it was more a "crime of passion" in Pistorius's position, I suspect more details of the history between Steenkamp and Pistorius will come out illustrating a greater link between this incident and domestic violence. Perpetrators of domestic violence, psychologically, have an overwhelming control view of such relationship, and will often go to extremes to make sure that their target does not escape them. This can degenerate to publicly exhibiting such control, because they have taken the psychological mindset that they continually need to exhibit such control in order to dictate to their target and others who may intercede that this is the relationship. Victims, on the other hand, start to believe they may actually deserve the situation and empathize more with the perceived plight of the perpetrator than their own - the term battered women's syndrome defines the victim's persona but I don't know its respective term on the perpetrator's part.
Regardless, for a perpetrator, the cycle and element of viewing control as such means that even if they are going to be found in public, it's better that they exhibit the finite element of control (which may include inflicting death) rather than what they may perceive as worse - the loss of control. I personally think going into their head and wondering "why didn't they do this or that" fairly senseless because you're not in the head of a person who is thinking rationally - you're in the head of a psychopath most often. A psychopath who knows what he is doing and justifies it to himself as needing to maintain control. And seeing what has happened in terms of lack of prosecuted domestic violence cases, Pistorius may also have seen this as something he could potentially evade.
Finally, I think maybe the alcohol and drug screen is to determine whether or not these elements were in Pistorius' system before he committed the murder. If there are unmetabolized elements in the amount of time, it would at least cast severe doubt on an intoxication/"roid rage" defense. I do wonder if these defenses exist in South Africa, and if they decide to try and bring in the domestic violence history, how the court will interpret the evidence as a whole to determine what, if any, conviction should be laid.
Sadly she would not be the first person to say they had a great relationship when the reality was otherwise. If there was a history of abuse - and certainly neighbours and police seem to think that something was going on there - it's not unreasonable to imagine that she was too shamed to admit it to anyone, especially when the man in question is a national hero.
Love, for some people, involves exhibiting control over their partner. He could have given her flowers or jewelry at other times. It's actually part of the domestic abuse cycle.
But even most abusers don't go to the level he allegedly did.
As for conviction, a poster on another forum I go to is from South Africa and he says the maximum sentence anyone ever gets is 10 years. Even for murder. (He said there was a recent case of child rape where the judge actually reduced the sentence to 8 years and there was huge commotion over that.) There is no death penalty. So this necessarily wouldn't ruin Pistorius's life, although a guilty verdict would destroy everything he's done, now and in the future.
This article says that it's 20 years minimum, up to life. It doesn't elaborate on how South Africa handles parole, though. Perhaps the poster to the forum you read is in another part of South Africa, just as different states in the US have different sentencing guidelines?
No necessary at all, it's just that when I worked in the emergency room, I observed that many issues of domestic violence and murder involved drugs and/or alcohol. In my experience, intoxication tends to bring out the worst in many people. Not always though; some people are evil and do horrible things while sober.
But that's why I said "if what is reported here is true." Sorry about the link; I didn't have to register for it . I can see a few scenarios where someone could legitimately shoot a non-intruder thinking the person was an intruder, but I would think such situations would be very, very rare.
I have no idea, but I wonder if it is because he chased her. It's one thing to attack someone in a rage. It's another to attack a person, then get a gun and go after the person when that person runs.
It depends on how South Africa defines premeditated murder. But it seems to me that if someone tries to hide from you and you make the choice to get a gun and go after that person, you have chosen to kill. Why else would you get a gun first? Even if you are in a rage, once the person is out of reach, you have the opportunity to back down and get control of yourself.
The police may also believe that he shot her deliberately because he was trying to cover up hitting her with a cricket bat (if that's what he did). He could have realized that she was badly injured, wondered how he was going to be able to cover that up, and deliberately killed her, thinking he could pass it off as an accident. That wouldn't be rational, given the circumstances, but he wouldn't be the first to come up with an obviously stupid story to cover up a murder.
I watch way too much ID.
I think all of that is true, but I also think that it is human nature for people to try to get away with things when they get caught and I don't think most people are rational or realistic about evaluating their odds of getting away with murder in the immediate aftermath. I would think in cases like this, there would be a lot of denial going on, too--I didn't mean it! I really didn't! He may even have convinced himself, at least on the surface, that it was an accident. Our minds rewrite events to shield us.
Perhaps. All of it's completely illogical though, at least to most of society. Someone who acts that seriously, that rashly, is definitely a danger to society.
They do, but again, someone who does it to the level that he did, is a danger to society.
I don't think you're defending him, though. We're all just trying to find answers to this, because the very circumstances just boggle the mind.
Does Oscar have any injuries? There's nothing noticeable on his head, neck or hands, but the rest of his body is covered by his suit.
Which is why it should be close to impossible to obtain a gun permit.
Yes, this is definitely the most likely scenario.
Pistorius's Agent Cancels Future Races
Well, I'm glad to know that, since it never occurred to me that anyone would think I was.
It's totally possible that somebody who would commit a crime such as the alleged crime here would think like that. However, a personal experience I've had with somebody difficult to deal with made me conclude that some people simply don't think the way the rest of us do. It's like they are living in another reality. I don't mean that they shouldn't be considered responsible of what they do, but simply that they are lacking so much in the interpersonal relationship department that where most of us would think "I have no right to do this" or "I'm tempted but I'll surely get caught", they don't, even if it is completely illogical. I understand what you are saying and I don't mean that it can't potentially happen to otherwise "normal" people in certain circumstances; but I now tend to believe that most people who do not experience such terrible intepersonal problems probably do realize that getting away with something like that is a very difficult thing to do, and they aren't that impulsive or aggressive in the first place so they just wouldn't do it anyway.
I mean, basically I agree with you except that I would think that most people are rational and realistic enough in their evaluation.
EDIT: okay I may have misunderstood your post, where you said "in the "aftermath". I guess I was thinking that the aftermath simply didn't exist for somebody who would commit such a crime.
Just covering all my bases!
I had no idea of the severity of the domestic violence in South Africa.. if any good came come of this at all is creating the awareness and hopefully education with regards to the issues of DV??
challenges the stereotypes of not only the perpetrator (being a white/athlete hero type) but also that of the victim (advocate/educated/aware re: DV)
I don't think you have to be a parent to have an opinion and even give advice, some of the best therapists I know that work with parents are not parents themselves..
Anyway age child of such a young age of 5 or 6 doesn't need to be explained about this.. too young..
pre-meditated is quite different to 'planned' you can be charged with pre-meditated murder even if you pre-mediated by a few minutes.. so like others have said - if he started out with the cricket bat then followed up with the gun - the latter part would have been pre-meditated - he 'decided/chose' to murder her..
I'm very curious as to what his defense/explanation is.. So sad for her family.. actually for both families..
Well this makes me so sad for Reeva. Imagine her final moments hiding in the bathroom after already being bloodied and beaten. The fact that she had an "overnight bag" perhaps suggests that she was planning to break up with him and was going to pack some things and leave in the morning. Don't know but I have read that these are often the small triggers in DV cases. Like in OJ Simpsons case I read that Nicole did not accept a necklace gift and that was the final straw.
The most dangerous time for a DV victim is when she takes steps to leave.
Not sure if the overnight bag is evidence that she planned to leave, though.
Oh, I was only responding to the part about how could it be possible for someone to accidentally fire more than once. From all the information reported so far, I highly doubt that Pistorious's actions and motives were in any way similar to Cory Maye's (the shooter in the story I linked yesterday). I don't think such shootings are common by any means, but I'm not sure they are extremely rare, either - though I imagine they are more common in areas with high crime and/or in situations like Maye's (confusing late night police raid).
See, and I took the presence of her overnight bag as she intended on staying the night. Perhaps in my naivety I misunderstood - I assumed that after only a few months of dating that they were not living together yet. I don't believe I have read anywhere saying one was or other.
As for him owning a gun...That doesn't surprise me one bit. I have heard stories from people that fled South Africa because of the dangers, and I think people living there are quite reasonable for having a gun for protection. I am thankful I live in a society where having a gun in the home is unusual and frowned up rather than in a society where it seems a necessary requirement to have such protection.
i could see owning one gun (not that I ever would) .. but he had then in each room and an assault weapon as well?? Domestics and weapon is a bad mix Hopefully we will hear soon.. I hope he doesn't get bail if the evidence they are suggesting is true - that is a slap in the face for every woman in SA
I have not read anything to suggest that Reeva had moved in. Since Reeva was found dead in her nightgown early on Thursday morning, it seems doubtful that she intended to break up with him that evening. She arrived at his house at 6 pm on Wednesday. Assuming that they'd just been in a heated argument and she wanted to leave the house, it seems that the more logical order of events would have been for her to put on her street clothes before deciding whether or not she had time to prepare an overnight bag. I suppose there's a possibility that her overnight bag contained something necessary for her to leave, such as glasses or contact lenses needed for driving.
Thank you for the explanation!
The Sun is reporting that steroids were found at Pistorius's house by police.
Would like to see a more reputable paper confirming....
How can a multiple medallist who got tested loads of times get away with taking steroids?
Ask Lance Armstrong.
But there are steroids and steroids. If you searched my house, you'd find steroids, too. They aren't anabolic steroids, but they are steroids. Corticosteroids are often prescribed to people who have injuries and inflammation; amputees often take them to to heal wounds.
I wouldn't be surprised if the police found anabolic steroids; he's a track and field athlete and anabolic steroid abuse is rife in T&F. But "steroids" is a frequently misunderstood term.
Well yeah I have allergy to pollen so I take steroids as well, I assumed The Sun meant anabolic steroids.
I might, too, except it's The Sun.