Oscar Pistorius

More than a bit rude Friday and dismissive of others’ opinions.
What difference does it make if an abused woman is “little and “innocent” or has had an abortion?” Is abuse excusable in certain scenarios? Of course not.
Anniebach’s assumptions are not * stupid* as you seem to claim and has it not occurred to you that Elegran might have justifiable foundation for her knowledge or interpretation of the Ellis case? You may not be the only person who has read Ruth Ellis’s life story, there will in any case be other sources available.

Well it certainly sounds as if Anniebach and Elegran are saying just that Jalima1108 - that Blakely deserved to be shot by Ellis, that he precipitated his ‘own murder’ !

There are two issues here - one is that someone who has behaved previously in a questionable way could be judged unfairly. The other is that some people, perhaps the media, may attribute some blame to a victim for somehow precipitating their own murder.

Of course I believe in a woman’s right to choose. What on earth has that got to do with the issue....except perhaps pick and choose which foetus to keep? You make some very stupid assumptions Anniebach - I’ve noticed this since coming in this forum that you tend to jump in with both feet.
Elegran I’ve actually read Ruth Ellis’s life story and I was only 8 years old when she was hanged, so I wasn’t buying into the image that was around at the time. Perhaps you are a lot older? Are you saying that books that were written quite a bit later were all fiction or, are you seriously suggesting that she was innocent by virtue of Blakely being a violent man? That it’s OK to shoot an abuser?

Just so Elegran, because she had an abortion a miscarriage is dismissed

Friday You say ^"And Ruth Ellis was no innocent little woman* You have described the the image that contributed to her conviction and execution. She was nightclub girl with violent lovers who had had an abortion. So she was already judged - as you judge her. No mercy.

Pistorius already had form for firing guns before he shot Reeva Steenkamp. He'd fired a gun whilst in a crowded restaurant only a month before he shot Reeva but his friend agreed to take the blame for that incident. He also fired a gun through the sun roof of a moving car. He was accustomed to using firearms and part of his trial focused on his previous incidents them.

Really Friday, so you must be one of the very few on this forum who do not believe in a woman's right to choose and you are doing what many did in the fifties when condemning Ruth Ellis

Excuse and reason are not the same , a person with a serious mental illness can be a serial killer, that is a reason not an excuse. A mother with severe post natal depression can kill her child, again reason not excuse .

And Ruth Ellis was no innocent little woman. She had already aborted a child deliberately and had a penchant for violent men, not caring if they were already married or not.

There is no excuse for murder except in self defence.

I have not mentioned his sentence, I always question possible reasons for one person taking the life of another , Ruth Ellis was judged harshly not so much for her crime but being a peroxide blond nightclub worker, the fact the man she did murder had hit her in the stomach and caused her to miscarry was of little importance in the fifties , that she was not respectable ! Did

I do know about the extent of fear about murderous burglars but don’t find his defence believable. The sentence fits the crime.
I don’t feel I can criticise Reeva’s parents. They will be suffering still.

Fair comment, but not to the extent of taking his anger out on other people. Surely someone should have realised that he needed psychiatric help if that was the case.

I think he thought that, because he was famous and an admired athlete, that he would be dealt with leniently and get a couple of years under house arrest in his uncle's lovely home.
This sentence is entirely appropriate for the crime.

Because her family behaved in a way that people don’t find ‘appropriate’ is completely irrelevant to whether his sentence should have been increased or not. As for his remorse and the testimony of a psychiatrist, that is simply not an irrefutable fact at all. And actually even if people are genuinely remorseful, that again doesn’t necessarily mean that a sentence should be lighter simply for that reason.

He may not have known what it was like to have legs but doesn't mean he could accept being legless

Agree Jane10.

not excusing what he did but to have gone from a man who had lost his legs to become a world athlete I question what this does to the mind
I think he was born without the fibulae in his lower legs which had to be amputated before he was one year old, so never knew what it would be like to have had legs and lost them.

Yes, I agree, it shows determination to become a world-class athlete, but other people who have lost limbs or are born without them do not necessarily vent any anger they may have on other people to the extent of being violent and murdering them.
And someone I know has lost a limb but displays no anger or resentment, on the contrary is determined and cheerful.

I see the Steenkamps as you do Jane, they took money from him whilst he was on trial, wrote a book, and were paid to have their photographs taken where they had scattered their daughters ashes , this was sick

It's hard for people here to comprehend the fear of break ins in SA. I was shocked at DD and SiL having steel bars and shutters on their house and an on call security firm who shoot intruders unless they shout a password in time.
Oscar's steroid use predisposed him to reflex/instinctive response - 'Roid rage' is a well known phenomenon. It was all over in a matter of seconds. A moment of madness.
His remorse was absolutely authentic. The well respected and experienced professor of clinical psychology attested as so.
All this was glossed over at his last 2 trials. Why? Politics.
The Steenkamps money grubbing antics do their daughter no credit. She'd be ashamed of them. Poor girl. Poor Oscar. Both of their lives are over.

I have wondered if it was shoot to kill or shoot to frighten

Wouldn’t make much of a defence oldwoman70 if he’d said that she’d done something that made him lose his temper, she’d fled in panic to the bathroom, he took his gun and shot her through the door when she refused to come out because he was in a red rage.

Would it?

I never believed his story about burglars and thinking she was still in bed because surely the first thing he would have done would be to ask her if she had heard something. make sure she was somewhere safe and then investigate.

Bluebelle Yes entitlement is the correct word to describe this man he expected the world to fall for his crocodile tears and he has now been found out with a decent sentence although it is not long enough imo.

I think he was/ is a very complex character probably as Anniebach says damaged , no one can imagine what a child goes through losing legs, did his parents make him a diva because of it or push him so hard to be ‘normal’ ? I think he had a sense of entitlement and a red rage temper and lived in a country where guns are used regularly He seemed to have a thing about guns and power and control
A true shame as she was a beautiful girl with her life before her and he was a very talented young man, both lives over in a moment
I don’t think he meant to kill her I think they rowed she probably threatened to leave him saught sanctuary in the toilet and he saw red grabbed his gun and shot without even thinking I never believed any of his excuses about burglars etc he knew exactly who he was after .
His sentence was too short probably still is, his family seem pretty clever at paying for favours
Put money, power and guns together and you re heading for a disaster