egafd.com

"Ha, David Johnson is a joker!

Pistorius admitted this did he?

You mean Pistorius CLAIMED that he believed that there was an intruder
in the locked bathroom.

Your statement James, elsewhere in this thread



"Pistorius admits he knew that SOMEONE was in the bathroom."

Who is the joker, here, James?

Again an example of your total confusion.

Clearly we disagree. No more to be said.

David Johnson wrote:

> Again you appear to be completely confused. I am merely
> explaining to you the judge's verdict not stating whether I
> have a "lot of faith in the judges's reasoning.


The judge said that Pistorius hadn't forseen that he would harm anyone and was merely negligent in what he did. But she also stated that he could have taken other steps before or as an alternative to firing into the bathroom.

This strikes many people as illogical, because if Pistorius had the presence of mind to issue a warning for example, then it's hard to see how he couldn't have forseen that he might hurt someone.

But above you said it clearly wasn't illogical, thereby showing that you fully accept the judge's reasoning.

Or did you mean that it clearly wasn't illogical TO HER ?

Originally you gave the impression that the clearly not illogical argument was also your opinion, but now you have said that you're merely explaining the judge's verdict.

So if you don't share her opinion, and are merely explaining it, do you now concede that her argument is in fact illogical?

"But above you said it clearly wasn't illogical, thereby showing that you fully accept the judge's reasoning. Or did you mean that it clearly wasn't illogical TO HER ? Originally you gave the impression that the clearly not illogical argument was also your opinion, but now you have said that you're merely explaining the judge's verdict. So if you don't share her opinion, and are merely explaining it, do you now concede that her argument is in fact illogical?"

Maybe I have been confusing in my comments about what the judge believed and what I believe.

As for the judge, she clearly did not see it illogical to argue that Pistorius could have phoned the police etc. before firing and still found him guilty of homicide as opposed to murder. To understand exactly why she took that view, I guess we would need to understand all the different nuances of the word "foreseen" in South African case law and I for one do not have that knowledge.

For myself, I believe he completely lost his cool and meant to kill Steenkamp. The fact that she was in a locked bathroom with both her mobile phones suggests to me that Pistorius had had some altercation with her. However, I can see that might be difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt.

But I feel the minimum he should have been found guilty of was common law murder. He admitted or if you prefer "claimed" that someone was in the locked bathroom, did not issue any warnings or call the police etc etc. and pumped four bullets into the bathroom.

David Johnson wrote:

> For myself, I believe he completely lost his cool and meant to
> kill Steenkamp.

Agreed. I believe he simply 'lost it'.


> I can see that might
> be difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt.

Agreed again. As the judge said "If there is any possibility of [Pistorius's testimony] being true, then he is entitled to an acquittal."


> But I feel the minimum he should have been found guilty of was
> common law murder. He admitted or if you prefer "claimed" that
> someone was in the locked bathroom, did not issue any warnings
> or call the police etc etc. and pumped four bullets into the
> bathroom.

Agreed again. I believe the judge's reasoning is illogical. If she thinks he should have issued a warning or called the police etc I don't see how she can take the view that he hadn't forseen that he might harm someone.

If Pistorius panicked and fired off 4 shots without really thinking about it or being aware of the likely consequences, then how was he supposed to contemplate issuing a warning or calling the police?

Glad we pretty much agree! I would be surprised if the common law murder tack is not the line the prosecution takes in their appeal.

Thanks for your time, James.

I still cannot believe that people think intruders stop for a shit and lock the
door.

A good summary.......and hardly a controversial view.