Interesting article.

“I have a confession to make,” says Sarwath Ahmed Gafoor. “I’m a bad guy.” He sits in his bedroom at night and rattles off all the lies he has told: lies about his parents’ jobs and wealth; the school he went to; the friends he never had. How he failed his first university course but told his family he passed with flying colours. How he concocted a two-year relationship with a woman he knew only briefly, then compounded the lie by pretending she cheated on him and broke his heart….

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/life/would-i-lie-to-you-20140317-34wax.html#ixzz2×80u21em

Bubblecar said:

Interesting article.

“I have a confession to make,” says Sarwath Ahmed Gafoor. “I’m a bad guy.” He sits in his bedroom at night and rattles off all the lies he has told: lies about his parents’ jobs and wealth; the school he went to; the friends he never had. How he failed his first university course but told his family he passed with flying colours. How he concocted a two-year relationship with a woman he knew only briefly, then compounded the lie by pretending she cheated on him and broke his heart….

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/life/would-i-lie-to-you-20140317-34wax.html#ixzz2×80u21em

Unless he’s lying about the “confession”
As in “I never tell the truth. I’m lying now.”

That’s explored in the article.

To chart a course through this confusion, I enlist the help of “human lie detector” Steve Van Aperen, a former Victorian police detective and now expert in polygraph testing. “Deceptive people often hedge, omit crucial facts, feign forgetfulness and pretend ignorance,” he says. “Often it is very difficult to get them to admit or acknowledge they are lying. Some compulsive liars actually believe what they are saying is truthful, because they have lived the lie for so long.”

Look for cues, he says. Are they answering the question or being evasive? Do their words match their body language? Are their statements littered with ‘ums’ and ‘ahs’? While speaking, do they cover their face with their hands?”

I think about all this the next time I speak to Gafoor. He tells me he has stopped telling lies.

“How do I know you are not lying to me now?” I ask. He looks out his bedroom window before answering. He puts his right hand up to his chin. He looks down. He scratches his cheek. “Aha!” I think. But then he says: “I have made a conscious decision not to lie any more.” And I believe him.

Compulsive liars are rare beasts – one study of 1000 repeat juvenile offenders found only 1 per cent were pathological liars. Highly successful people are not immune, says Charles Dike. More work is needed on what causes compulsive lying and how best to treat it, he says. “It’s very hard to recruit people to do research in this area. You don’t know whether what they say is true or not true,” he says. It’s a fascinating conundrum.”

Tamb said:

Bubblecar said:

Interesting article.

“I have a confession to make,” says Sarwath Ahmed Gafoor. “I’m a bad guy.” He sits in his bedroom at night and rattles off all the lies he has told: lies about his parents’ jobs and wealth; the school he went to; the friends he never had. How he failed his first university course but told his family he passed with flying colours. How he concocted a two-year relationship with a woman he knew only briefly, then compounded the lie by pretending she cheated on him and broke his heart….

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/life/would-i-lie-to-you-20140317-34wax.html#ixzz2×80u21em

Unless he’s lying about the “confession”
As in “I never tell the truth. I’m lying now.”

Yes, in order to be confident that he is really the sort of person he describes, I would have to be confident that he is not really the sort of person he describes.

Bubblecar said:

More work is needed on what causes compulsive lying and how best to treat it, he says.

I’m sure I’ve got some drugs that cost heaps and may do something…

poikilotherm said:

Bubblecar said:

More work is needed on what causes compulsive lying and how best to treat it, he says.

I’m sure I’ve got some drugs that cost heaps and may do something…

IMO the best liars are the self-deluded ones because they really believe what they are saying is true.

Tamb said:

poikilotherm said:

Bubblecar said:

More work is needed on what causes compulsive lying and how best to treat it, he says.

I’m sure I’ve got some drugs that cost heaps and may do something…

IMO the best liars are the self-deluded ones because they really believe what they are saying is true.

Do you really believe that?

>Do you really believe that?

It’s sort of true because to increase ones chances of being believed one has to demonstrate convincing commitment to whatever (authority of sorts), which by the way opens up a lot of room for others to do the same thing, even the audience of the ‘creativity’.

People indulge it as ‘entertainment’ via TV news, and many unconsciously adopt the methods.

I had a friend in high school who would construct an outrageous set of lies about a part of his life and stick with it even though we both knew they were lies. He was very strongly built and a top surfer and ironman and a nice guy generally.. was just his little game.

I still lie… it’s amazing what people believe.

I used to tell people I’m a small three-wheeled vehicle and they lapped it up.

>I had a friend in high school who would construct an outrageous set of lies about a part of his life and stick with it even though we both knew they were lies.

Related, if a person finds something about life horrendously difficult, and knowingly creates their own private reality (which I think we all do anyway to large extent), are the devices employed a “lie”. Consider it in the context of there being no pathology.

And when is a lie a lie, only when it or something related of is spoken or written down? Because this’d be an odd situation.

Oh dear:

>> a former Victorian police detective and now expert in polygraph testing.<<

Poly graph. Oh dear…..

Aye, there are many dishonest claims made on behalf of lie detectors.

Polygraphs are so easy to beat.

I’m a compulsive liar, too.
Oh wait, no I’m not.
Both of the above statements are false.

> Polygraphs are so easy to beat.

Not easy. Each individual component is easy to beat on its own, but not together if your life depends on whether you beat the polygraph or not.

Divine Angel said:

Polygraphs are so easy to beat.

I’ve passed hundreds of them

Too easy

I’ve passed hundreds of them
———————————————-

How many people have you killed?

Mr Ironic said:

How many people have you killed?

Gosh, we don’t usually get to that sort of question until at least he second date.

mollwollfumble said:

I’m a compulsive liar, too.
Oh wait, no I’m not.
Both of the above statements are false.

> Polygraphs are so easy to beat.

Not easy. Each individual component is easy to beat on its own, but not together if your life depends on whether you beat the polygraph or not.

there is a reason why they aren’t accepted as ‘evidence’ in a court.. they can be supporting but not hard evidence… Your life will never hinge on a polygraph.

Mr Ironic said:

I’ve passed hundreds of them
———————————————-

How many people have you killed?

its a matter of speculation

wookiemeister said:

Mr Ironic said:

I’ve passed hundreds of them
———————————————-

How many people have you killed?

its a matter of speculation

the correct answer is -as many as you can prove

Arts said:

wookiemeister said:

Mr Ironic said:

I’ve passed hundreds of them
———————————————-

How many people have you killed?

its a matter of speculation

the correct answer is -as many as you can prove

its only illegal if they catch you

just tell them the voices told you to do it and you show remorse

you’ll be out in weeks

Arts said:

wookiemeister said:

Mr Ironic said:

I’ve passed hundreds of them
———————————————-

How many people have you killed?

its a matter of speculation

the correct answer is -as many as you can prove

I’d have to answer with a question: deliberately, or accidentally?

wookiemeister said:

just tell them the voices told you to do it and you show remorse

you’ll be out in weeks

days with a good lawyer

captain_spalding said:

Arts said:

wookiemeister said:

its a matter of speculation

the correct answer is -as many as you can prove

I’d have to answer with a question: deliberately, or accidentally?

gosh I’m excited about this OScar Pistorius trial.. it all hinges on one thing.. intent.

Arts said:

wookiemeister said:

just tell them the voices told you to do it and you show remorse

you’ll be out in weeks

days with a good lawyer

If you’ve got enough money, it may never even go to Court.

Arts said:

captain_spalding said:

Arts said:

the correct answer is -as many as you can prove

I’d have to answer with a question: deliberately, or accidentally?

gosh I’m excited about this OScar Pistorius trial.. it all hinges on one thing.. intent.

Yes. Did he mean to do it, or is he just monumentally stupid?

captain_spalding said:

Arts said:

captain_spalding said:

I’d have to answer with a question: deliberately, or accidentally?

gosh I’m excited about this OScar Pistorius trial.. it all hinges on one thing.. intent.

Yes. Did he mean to do it, or is he just monumentally stupid?

The realistic part is that he absolutely made sure that she couldn’t tell her side of the story.

Well at least Carlton won tonight.

roughbarked said:

captain_spalding said:

Arts said:

gosh I’m excited about this OScar Pistorius trial.. it all hinges on one thing.. intent.

Yes. Did he mean to do it, or is he just monumentally stupid?

The realistic part is that he absolutely made sure that she couldn’t tell her side of the story.

The thing is.. whether he thought it was her or not.. he still deliberately shot through a door with the intention to kill someone.

Arts said:

roughbarked said:

captain_spalding said:

Yes. Did he mean to do it, or is he just monumentally stupid?

The realistic part is that he absolutely made sure that she couldn’t tell her side of the story.

The thing is.. whether he thought it was her or not.. he still deliberately shot through a door with the intention to kill someone.

more than once.

roughbarked said:

The realistic part is that he absolutely made sure that she couldn’t tell her side of the story.

If i understand Oscar’s story, he wakes up, thinks there might be a burglar in the place, gets out of bed (presumably noticing that Reeva isn’t in it), goes to the bathroom, and not knowing where Reeva is, decides to pump a few slugs through the door, just in case.

Only two possibilities: he’s lying, and guilty of murder, or he’s staggeringly, incredibly, hopelessly stupid.

captain_spalding said:

roughbarked said:

The realistic part is that he absolutely made sure that she couldn’t tell her side of the story.

If i understand Oscar’s story, he wakes up, thinks there might be a burglar in the place, gets out of bed (presumably noticing that Reeva isn’t in it), goes to the bathroom, and not knowing where Reeva is, decides to pump a few slugs through the door, just in case.

Only two possibilities: he’s lying, and guilty of murder, or he’s staggeringly, incredibly, hopelessly stupid.

He was smart enough to use bullets that would do the maximum damage.

captain_spalding said:

roughbarked said:

The realistic part is that he absolutely made sure that she couldn’t tell her side of the story.

If i understand Oscar’s story, he wakes up, thinks there might be a burglar in the place, gets out of bed (presumably noticing that Reeva isn’t in it), goes to the bathroom, and not knowing where Reeva is, decides to pump a few slugs through the door, just in case.

Only two possibilities: he’s lying, and guilty of murder, or he’s staggeringly, incredibly, hopelessly stupid.

he says he thought she was in the bed…. and constantly refereed to it being ‘pitch dark’

Arts said:

he says he thought she was in the bed…. and constantly refereed to it being ‘pitch dark’

Stoopid tough guy – he should have had a night-light.

Arts said:

captain_spalding said:

roughbarked said:

The realistic part is that he absolutely made sure that she couldn’t tell her side of the story.

If i understand Oscar’s story, he wakes up, thinks there might be a burglar in the place, gets out of bed (presumably noticing that Reeva isn’t in it), goes to the bathroom, and not knowing where Reeva is, decides to pump a few slugs through the door, just in case.

Only two possibilities: he’s lying, and guilty of murder, or he’s staggeringly, incredibly, hopelessly stupid.

he says he thought she was in the bed…. and constantly refereed to it being ‘pitch dark’

Well why didn’t he warn her that he was about to fire a salvo from his noisy weapon?
So that’s why he needed so many bullets ?

Anyway, if he wasn’t the blade runner, the case would have been open and shut.

Arts said:

roughbarked said:

captain_spalding said:

Yes. Did he mean to do it, or is he just monumentally stupid?

The realistic part is that he absolutely made sure that she couldn’t tell her side of the story.

The thing is.. whether he thought it was her or not.. he still deliberately shot through a door with the intention to kill someone.

reminds me of that bloke who told people his girlfriend had committed suicide even though theres a picture of him grabbing her with his hand over her mouth seconds before she suicided

Arts said:

he says he thought she was in the bed…. and constantly refereed to it being ‘pitch dark’

Well, he might have asked ‘Reeva, are you there?’ before he got out of bed, or ‘did you hear that?’. Or put out a hand to confirm that she was there.

Maybe he was being considerate – didn’t want to wake her. “I’ll just get up, put five or six bullets into this intruder, and pop back into bed. No need to disturb Reeva”.

hears noise in toilet late of a night

immediately assumes it is an intruder

wookiemeister said:

hears noise in toilet late of a night

immediately assumes it is an intruder

all intruders make a bee line for the toilet , not for where valuables are kept

wookiemeister said:

wookiemeister said:

hears noise in toilet late of a night

immediately assumes it is an intruder

all intruders make a bee line for the toilet , not for where valuables are kept

See, this is why they tell you in burglary school ‘make sure you go before you set out on the job’.

wookiemeister said:

hears noise in toilet late of a night

immediately assumes it is an intruder

usually it would be an extruder.

wookiemeister said:

wookiemeister said:

hears noise in toilet late of a night

immediately assumes it is an intruder

all intruders make a bee line for the toilet , not for where valuables are kept

Most intruders stop to lay a turd on the lounge room rug. None of this toilet business.

wookiemeister said:

wookiemeister said:

hears noise in toilet late of a night

immediately assumes it is an intruder

all intruders make a bee line for the toilet , not for where valuables are kept

a lot of jewellery visits toilets.

captain_spalding said:

Maybe he was being considerate – didn’t want to wake her. “I’ll just get up, put five or six bullets into this intruder, and pop back into bed. No need to disturb Reeva”.

sounds logical :)

wookiemeister said:

Arts said:

roughbarked said:

The realistic part is that he absolutely made sure that she couldn’t tell her side of the story.

The thing is.. whether he thought it was her or not.. he still deliberately shot through a door with the intention to kill someone.

reminds me of that bloke who told people his girlfriend had committed suicide even though theres a picture of him grabbing her with his hand over her mouth seconds before she suicided

he might not have pushed her.. but he still is responsible, because he could have just let her go instead of dragging her back ?

so none of you think he might be telling the truth?

roughbarked said:

wookiemeister said:

wookiemeister said:

hears noise in toilet late of a night

immediately assumes it is an intruder

all intruders make a bee line for the toilet , not for where valuables are kept

a lot of jewellery visits toilets.

you could always steal the jewels and then have a shit in the box I suppose

Arts said:

so none of you think he might be telling the truth?

Oscar? no.

Arts said:

so none of you think he might be telling the truth?

No.

.. and even if he was, his “shoot first and ask questions later” approach was wrong. It would still have landed him on trial for murder or manslaughter even if it was a real crook in the dunny.

party_pants said:

Arts said:

so none of you think he might be telling the truth?

No.

.. and even if he was, his “shoot first and ask questions later” approach was wrong. It would still have landed him on trial for murder or manslaughter even if it was a real crook in the dunny.

If the real crook had lived, he could have sued for work related injury.

Arts said:

so none of you think he might be telling the truth?

Absolutely not!

party_pants said:

Arts said:

so none of you think he might be telling the truth?

No.

.. and even if he was, his “shoot first and ask questions later” approach was wrong. It would still have landed him on trial for murder or manslaughter even if it was a real crook in the dunny.

Pistroius said that he ‘felt in danger of his life’ where he can use the self defence law.

Arts said:

party_pants said:

Arts said:

so none of you think he might be telling the truth?

No.

.. and even if he was, his “shoot first and ask questions later” approach was wrong. It would still have landed him on trial for murder or manslaughter even if it was a real crook in the dunny.

Pistroius said that he ‘felt in danger of his life’ where he can use the self defence law.

Which can be deconstructed by, did an intruder attack you with a weapon?

roughbarked said:

Arts said:

party_pants said:

No.

.. and even if he was, his “shoot first and ask questions later” approach was wrong. It would still have landed him on trial for murder or manslaughter even if it was a real crook in the dunny.

Pistroius said that he ‘felt in danger of his life’ where he can use the self defence law.

Which can be deconstructed by, did an intruder attack you with a weapon?

you still have to take into account ‘state of mind’

“He was not wearing his artificial legs at the time of the shooting, and has said this made him feel vulnerable and panicky,”

Arts said:

party_pants said:

Arts said:

so none of you think he might be telling the truth?

No.

.. and even if he was, his “shoot first and ask questions later” approach was wrong. It would still have landed him on trial for murder or manslaughter even if it was a real crook in the dunny.

Pistroius said that he ‘felt in danger of his life’ where he can use the self defence law.

He probably would have a greater chance of that defence being successful if it was a real burglar. He would still go on trial and have to argue his case and await the verdict. Discounting the theory that they had just had a lover’s tiff and he got violent and shot her deliberately; even if he was awoken by the noise and started shooting, he intended to kill whoever was behind that door. His feelings don’t enter into it, it will be a question of whether it was reasonable in self defence to act in such a way. As I said, he is in trouble for the whole shoot first ask questions later approach.

Arts said:

roughbarked said:

Arts said:

Pistroius said that he ‘felt in danger of his life’ where he can use the self defence law.

Which can be deconstructed by, did an intruder attack you with a weapon?

you still have to take into account ‘state of mind’

“He was not wearing his artificial legs at the time of the shooting, and has said this made him feel vulnerable and panicky,”

So why didn’t he hide under the bed and warn Reeva to do the same?

party_pants said:

Arts said:

party_pants said:

No.

.. and even if he was, his “shoot first and ask questions later” approach was wrong. It would still have landed him on trial for murder or manslaughter even if it was a real crook in the dunny.

Pistroius said that he ‘felt in danger of his life’ where he can use the self defence law.

He probably would have a greater chance of that defence being successful if it was a real burglar. He would still go on trial and have to argue his case and await the verdict. Discounting the theory that they had just had a lover’s tiff and he got violent and shot her deliberately; even if he was awoken by the noise and started shooting, he intended to kill whoever was behind that door. His feelings don’t enter into it, it will be a question of whether it was reasonable in self defence to act in such a way. As I said, he is in trouble for the whole shoot first ask questions later approach.

Yes. He is in trouble. I don’t believe he can pull off the self defence thing.

Anyway, what of the witnesses accounts?

party_pants said:

even if he was awoken by the noise and started shooting, he intended to kill whoever was behind that door.

I agree with that … the verdict comes down to intent

party_pants said:

His feelings don’t enter into it, it will be a question of whether it was reasonable in self defence to act in such a way. As I said, he is in trouble for the whole shoot first ask questions later approach.

his feeling do enter into it. They argue about state of mind.

roughbarked said:

Arts said:

roughbarked said:

Which can be deconstructed by, did an intruder attack you with a weapon?

you still have to take into account ‘state of mind’

“He was not wearing his artificial legs at the time of the shooting, and has said this made him feel vulnerable and panicky,”

So why didn’t he hide under the bed and warn Reeva to do the same?

he’s not a flighter, he’s a fighter.

I don’t know if he killed her intently or not. I’m not sure we’ll ever know… but it’s a great debate.

Arts said:

roughbarked said:

Arts said:

you still have to take into account ‘state of mind’

“He was not wearing his artificial legs at the time of the shooting, and has said this made him feel vulnerable and panicky,”

So why didn’t he hide under the bed and warn Reeva to do the same?

he’s not a flighter, he’s a fighter.

I don’t know if he killed her intently or not. I’m not sure we’ll ever know… but it’s a great debate.

A fighter knows that an intruders feet could be blown off from under the bed with the bullets he loaded into his gun.

roughbarked said:

party_pants said:

Arts said:

Pistroius said that he ‘felt in danger of his life’ where he can use the self defence law.

He probably would have a greater chance of that defence being successful if it was a real burglar. He would still go on trial and have to argue his case and await the verdict. Discounting the theory that they had just had a lover’s tiff and he got violent and shot her deliberately; even if he was awoken by the noise and started shooting, he intended to kill whoever was behind that door. His feelings don’t enter into it, it will be a question of whether it was reasonable in self defence to act in such a way. As I said, he is in trouble for the whole shoot first ask questions later approach.

Yes. He is in trouble. I don’t believe he can pull off the self defence thing.

Anyway, what of the witnesses accounts?

there are only ‘ear witnesses’ but I did have a giggle at the reference about the witness who heard a ‘woman’s scream’ and the defence said that the scream may have come from Pistorius… heh reminded me of Ned Flanders…

Arts said:

party_pants said:

even if he was awoken by the noise and started shooting, he intended to kill whoever was behind that door.

I agree with that … the verdict comes down to intent

party_pants said:

His feelings don’t enter into it, it will be a question of whether it was reasonable in self defence to act in such a way. As I said, he is in trouble for the whole shoot first ask questions later approach.

his feeling do enter into it. They argue about state of mind.

It’s whether his feelings are reasonable, that’s what his lawyer has to argue. Not just that he had those feelings. It’s up to the court to decide on the reasonableness.

roughbarked said:

Arts said:

roughbarked said:

So why didn’t he hide under the bed and warn Reeva to do the same?

he’s not a flighter, he’s a fighter.

I don’t know if he killed her intently or not. I’m not sure we’ll ever know… but it’s a great debate.

A fighter knows that an intruders feet could be blown off from under the bed with the bullets he loaded into his gun.

not everyone is a sniper shot like you roughbarked :)

Arts said:

roughbarked said:

Arts said:

he’s not a flighter, he’s a fighter.

I don’t know if he killed her intently or not. I’m not sure we’ll ever know… but it’s a great debate.

A fighter knows that an intruders feet could be blown off from under the bed with the bullets he loaded into his gun.

not everyone is a sniper shot like you roughbarked :)

He had more than one bullet. He was capable of putting them all through the toilet door in this pitch blackness. There is always the fact that unless he saw the intruder or intruders were armed and dangerous looking, they couldn’t shoot up the bed with AK-47’s unless they actually had the weapons.

I think it’s entirely possible he made a series of decisions and rationalisations and went into a ‘fight or flight ‘ mode at the last minute, without intent.

I haven’t been following the trial but if the first bullet didn’t kill her, it most certainly would have made her scream.

roughbarked said:

Arts said:

roughbarked said:

A fighter knows that an intruders feet could be blown off from under the bed with the bullets he loaded into his gun.

not everyone is a sniper shot like you roughbarked :)

He had more than one bullet. He was capable of putting them all through the toilet door in this pitch blackness. There is always the fact that unless he saw the intruder or intruders were armed and dangerous looking, they couldn’t shoot up the bed with AK-47’s unless they actually had the weapons.

he fired four shots.

Arts said:

roughbarked said:

Arts said:

not everyone is a sniper shot like you roughbarked :)

He had more than one bullet. He was capable of putting them all through the toilet door in this pitch blackness. There is always the fact that unless he saw the intruder or intruders were armed and dangerous looking, they couldn’t shoot up the bed with AK-47’s unless they actually had the weapons.

he fired four shots.

and all of them hit the toilet door in the dark?

roughbarked said:

Arts said:

roughbarked said:

He had more than one bullet. He was capable of putting them all through the toilet door in this pitch blackness. There is always the fact that unless he saw the intruder or intruders were armed and dangerous looking, they couldn’t shoot up the bed with AK-47’s unless they actually had the weapons.

he fired four shots.

and all of them hit the toilet door in the dark?

yes..

the assumption is that by this time his eyes have ‘adjusted to the dark’ and his fight response has kicked in. he wasn’t too far away from the door

Arts said:

I think it’s entirely possible he made a series of decisions and rationalisations and went into a ‘fight or flight ‘ mode at the last minute, without intent.

It is possible. His lawyer will have to argue a strong case.

roughbarked said:

Yes. He is in trouble. I don’t believe he can pull off the self defence thing.

Anyway, what of the witnesses accounts?

He hasn’t got a leg to stand on.

Arts said:

roughbarked said:

Arts said:

he fired four shots.

and all of them hit the toilet door in the dark?

yes..

the assumption is that by this time his eyes have ‘adjusted to the dark’ and his fight response has kicked in. he wasn’t too far away from the door

Yes and it is only an assumption. far away from the door is immaterial.. Have you ever fired a handgun?

roughbarked said:

Arts said:

roughbarked said:

and all of them hit the toilet door in the dark?

yes..

the assumption is that by this time his eyes have ‘adjusted to the dark’ and his fight response has kicked in. he wasn’t too far away from the door

Yes and it is only an assumption. far away from the door is immaterial.. Have you ever fired a handgun?

whether I have is not in question, he had previously and was in a pretty good athletic form.

Arts said:

roughbarked said:

Arts said:

yes..

the assumption is that by this time his eyes have ‘adjusted to the dark’ and his fight response has kicked in. he wasn’t too far away from the door

Yes and it is only an assumption. far away from the door is immaterial.. Have you ever fired a handgun?

whether I have is not in question, he had previously and was in a pretty good athletic form.

Athletic form could be useful. However, handguns are very difficult to be accurate with in daylight. Particularly if firing rapid fire.

It is his word against hers that the lights were off.

It actually takes a good deal of intent to fire four bullets into a toilet door.

and anyway, if the intruder was hiding in the toilet, why was he/she dangerous? How could they be, they’d taken flight, not engaged in fight.

Firearms instructor Sean Rens, who taught Pistorius gun safety and sold him weapons, testified on day 11 of the trial.

He read out a gun licence test passed by the track athlete. One of the questions asked whether a homeowner was allowed to open fire on burglars on the other side of a security gate.

Mr Rens told the court Pistorius answered “No”.

Asked in the test about the legal basis for using lethal force, Pistorius answered: “The attack must be against you, a person and be unlawful.”

In answer to another scenario, Pistorius replied: “No, life is not in danger.”

Mr Rens said Pistorius also made clear that a gun owner should never shoot unless he knew what he was shooting at, and what lay behind the target.

“Know your target and what lies beyond,” Mr Rens said, quoting Pistorius’ answer.

party_pants said:

It’s whether his feelings are reasonable, that’s what his lawyer has to argue. Not just that he had those feelings. It’s up to the court to decide on the reasonableness.

Yep. It’s contextual.

Brother of a mate of mine is running the Apple show in Singapore. His apartment got broken into in the middle of the night last week (while they were all asleep, but he woke up and interrupted the perps)… Cops reckon they were probably intending to abduct his kids for ransom.

There’s a lot of stuff that makes no sense unless you understand the context.

Rule 303 said:

party_pants said:

It’s whether his feelings are reasonable, that’s what his lawyer has to argue. Not just that he had those feelings. It’s up to the court to decide on the reasonableness.

Yep. It’s contextual.

Brother of a mate of mine is running the Apple show in Singapore. His apartment got broken into in the middle of the night last week (while they were all asleep, but he woke up and interrupted the perps)… Cops reckon they were probably intending to abduct his kids for ransom.

There’s a lot of stuff that makes no sense unless you understand the context.

However, in this case the context is all wrong. Which is part of the reason you said he doesn’t have a leg to stand on.. Other than the joke bit.

Maybe his state of mind was not rationalising like that in that moment.

He was no dum dum when it came to the choice of bullets to load into a gun he kept where he could reach it in pitch blackness.

This shows clear intent that he wanted to blow big bits off any chance intruder that didn’t ask if they could use his toilet.

I think when unhappy, distressed, or angry, some individuals can become a bit autistic (there’s a word for it but can’t remember), so the desires that tended the weirdness into the drivers seat is not sort of retrospectively available, or the relationship between the emotional motivation core that tends some behaviour and the reflective mediating aspects are circumvented, so the memory of how some action came to happen isn’t sort of ‘comprehensive’ I’ll put it.

I think too that it has always been the case some individuals sort of revert to a staggering ignorance regards some action when the adverse attention is turned on them(probably an adaptive fall back thing).

There’s probably an advantage in looking even dumber than you really are, and I believe even brain damaged inidividuals can do this instinctively. Smartr individuals no doubt do it too, it doesn’t always come with an advantage to look clever.

Re once police and lawyers etc are involved an apparent drop in IQ is quite handy all round. They have a particular angle on some wrong doing that want to push, they want the bad guys co-operation, the bad guy still has to be defended of all the right things he did, so the good guys want a business as usual outcome really. They are happy if the bad guy appears dumber than what he is, because it helps the good guys take it down the road they want.

Dumb is the oldest business as usual device ever.

roughbarked said:

However, in this case the context is all wrong. Which is part of the reason you said he doesn’t have a leg to stand on.. Other than the joke bit.

It’s entirely possible she had been bullying and torturing him for years and he just got sick of it. It’s a slim chance, I know, but assuming that he would have been able to easily over-power her physically is a bad mistake.

Arts said:

Maybe his state of mind was not rationalising like that in that moment.

It is possible, but it may not be enough for a legal defence.

Rule 303 said:

roughbarked said:

However, in this case the context is all wrong. Which is part of the reason you said he doesn’t have a leg to stand on.. Other than the joke bit.

It’s entirely possible she had been bullying and torturing him for years and he just got sick of it. It’s a slim chance, I know, but assuming that he would have been able to easily over-power her physically is a bad mistake.

Where were his bruises?

anything is possible…

the trouble is.. even in the outcome there will still be questions and doubts.. on both sides…

unless Oscar has a tell all book to publish in 20-50 yeas

roughbarked said:

Rule 303 said:

roughbarked said:

However, in this case the context is all wrong. Which is part of the reason you said he doesn’t have a leg to stand on.. Other than the joke bit.

It’s entirely possible she had been bullying and torturing him for years and he just got sick of it. It’s a slim chance, I know, but assuming that he would have been able to easily over-power her physically is a bad mistake.

Where were his bruises?

it doesn’t have to be physical

party_pants said:

Arts said:

Maybe his state of mind was not rationalising like that in that moment.

It is possible, but it may not be enough for a legal defence.

Pistorius kept a 9-mm. Parabellum pistol near his bed. Steenkamp, his girlfriend, was a model with a law degree; she was staying at his house, located in a gated community.

It wasn’t the wild west.

roughbarked said:

party_pants said:

Arts said:

Maybe his state of mind was not rationalising like that in that moment.

It is possible, but it may not be enough for a legal defence.

Pistorius kept a 9-mm. Parabellum pistol near his bed. Steenkamp, his girlfriend, was a model with a law degree; she was staying at his house, located in a gated community.

It wasn’t the wild west.

it’s not unusual for people to keep guns by their bed… or to pick them up when they feel ‘intrusion’

roughbarked said:

Where were his bruises?

I don’t know.

roughbarked said:

party_pants said:

Arts said:

Maybe his state of mind was not rationalising like that in that moment.

It is possible, but it may not be enough for a legal defence.

Pistorius kept a 9-mm. Parabellum pistol near his bed. Steenkamp, his girlfriend, was a model with a law degree; she was staying at his house, located in a gated community.

It wasn’t the wild west.

It was South Africa, which is a close enough parallel. But even the wild west had laws against murder.

roughbarked said:

It wasn’t the wild west.

I have not visited Pretoria, but the short times I spent in Cape Town and Johannesburg left me with some very clear ideas about personal safety.

{|8-/

Arts said:

roughbarked said:

Rule 303 said:

It’s entirely possible she had been bullying and torturing him for years and he just got sick of it. It’s a slim chance, I know, but assuming that he would have been able to easily over-power her physically is a bad mistake.

Where were his bruises?

it doesn’t have to be physical

I know all about non-physical abuse. However A court may need to hear at least a 25 year history of it to accept it as a reason for manslaughter.

Arts said:

roughbarked said:

party_pants said:

It is possible, but it may not be enough for a legal defence.

Pistorius kept a 9-mm. Parabellum pistol near his bed. Steenkamp, his girlfriend, was a model with a law degree; she was staying at his house, located in a gated community.

It wasn’t the wild west.

it’s not unusual for people to keep guns by their bed… or to pick them up when they feel ‘intrusion’

In a gated community?

with bullets like this in it?

“Saayman then went on to describe Steenkamp’s internal injuries, starting with her skull and how the bullet had entered it, creating multiple fractures.

He said the kind of ammunition used was previously referred to as “black talon” ammunition, and these bullets were taken off the market and later re-branded as “ranger” ammunition.

Saayman said this ammunition was an expanding bullet, designed to open up, mushroom upon striking human tissue. The kinetic energy is maintained, meaning it causes major tissue damage.

Saayman then said the bullets were also designed to split up into jagged pieces to do maximum damage. “

Rule 303 said:

roughbarked said:

It wasn’t the wild west.

I have not visited Pretoria, but the short times I spent in Cape Town and Johannesburg left me with some very clear ideas about personal safety.

{|8-/

perhaps so but did you buy a gun?

roughbarked said:

Rule 303 said:

roughbarked said:

It wasn’t the wild west.

I have not visited Pretoria, but the short times I spent in Cape Town and Johannesburg left me with some very clear ideas about personal safety.

{|8-/

perhaps so but did you buy a gun?

the crime rate there is relevant and should be factored in. But is that enough to completely excuse his actions – that’s what the court needs to decide.

roughbarked said:

perhaps so but did you buy a gun?

No, but I have an understanding of one could feel the need for it.

A pretty, rich, successful, Olympian would be worth a gigantic fortune as a hostage for ransom. Enough to secure the future of a dozen families. Pistorius doesn’t strike me as the brightest of chaps, but he would have to be a complete idiot to not realise that.

party_pants said:

roughbarked said:

Rule 303 said:

I have not visited Pretoria, but the short times I spent in Cape Town and Johannesburg left me with some very clear ideas about personal safety.

{|8-/

perhaps so but did you buy a gun?

the crime rate there is relevant and should be factored in. But is that enough to completely excuse his actions – that’s what the court needs to decide.

Yes. It is definitely in the hands of the court.

I recently had an intruder within the same distance of me and had I known he was there before he drove my car away, I would have not thought twice about bashing his fingers on the steering wheel with whatever that came to hand. However, even if I did have a loaded gun beside my bed, I would have thought twice about aiming for his head, I’d have aimed at the tyres.

Rule 303 said:

roughbarked said:

perhaps so but did you buy a gun?

No, but I have an understanding of one could feel the need for it.

A pretty, rich, successful, Olympian would be worth a gigantic fortune as a hostage for ransom. Enough to secure the future of a dozen families. Pistorius doesn’t strike me as the brightest of chaps, but he would have to be a complete idiot to not realise that.

Rich, successful… Hire bodyguards.

Anyway. It is up to the court to decide reasonable doubt. If there is reasonable doubt, I’d expect that to be the ruling.

roughbarked said:

Rich, successful… Hire bodyguards.

Yeah, interestingly, my mate’s brother (from earlier) was inside a completely sealed apartment building, on the top floor, in a ‘secure’ district, of a place at much lower risk level than South Africa (generally). The cops caught the perp because they were able to seal off several blocks around the building extremely quickly and check everybody within the perimeter. DV might be able to give you more details on how these things are achieved.

I’m not sure there’s any more security a body guarding service would have been able to offer him without very badly impacting upon his privacy.

Rule 303 said:

roughbarked said:

Rich, successful… Hire bodyguards.

Yeah, interestingly, my mate’s brother (from earlier) was inside a completely sealed apartment building, on the top floor, in a ‘secure’ district, of a place at much lower risk level than South Africa (generally). The cops caught the perp because they were able to seal off several blocks around the building extremely quickly and check everybody within the perimeter. DV might be able to give you more details on how these things are achieved.

I’m not sure there’s any more security a body guarding service would have been able to offer him without very badly impacting upon his privacy.

It is all fair enough.

I’m not rich but I did think I lived in a place where the locals all respected each others privacy. Unfortunately not big enough to have a police presence and at least an hour from getting a rapid police response.

roughbarked said:

I’m not rich but I did think I lived in a place where the locals all respected each others privacy. Unfortunately not big enough to have a police presence and at least an hour from getting a rapid police response.

Going back to what I was saying about context: Pistorius lives in a city with a 30% HIV infection rate, where money literally buys life, with no effective Police service (no-matter how long you wait). It’s difficult to imagine, for us whities.

I am not trying to create excuses for him, just saying, the world can be a fucken hard place.

Rule 303 said:

roughbarked said:

I’m not rich but I did think I lived in a place where the locals all respected each others privacy. Unfortunately not big enough to have a police presence and at least an hour from getting a rapid police response.

Going back to what I was saying about context: Pistorius lives in a city with a 30% HIV infection rate, where money literally buys life, with no effective Police service (no-matter how long you wait). It’s difficult to imagine, for us whities.

I am not trying to create excuses for him, just saying, the world can be a fucken hard place.

Yes I can imagine that’s why they are allowed to have guns.

roughbarked said:

Arts said:

roughbarked said:

Pistorius kept a 9-mm. Parabellum pistol near his bed. Steenkamp, his girlfriend, was a model with a law degree; she was staying at his house, located in a gated community.

It wasn’t the wild west.

it’s not unusual for people to keep guns by their bed… or to pick them up when they feel ‘intrusion’

In a gated community?

yes. SA is not the safest of places. I doubt people would leave their cars unlocked, even in a gated community. Plus there’s the threat of kidnapping. Plus you have to put yourself into the mind of a man who feels vulnerable already (especially when he’s not on his prosthetics)

shrug I don’t think it’s as much of a stretch as you seem to think it is

Rule 303 said:

roughbarked said:

perhaps so but did you buy a gun?

No, but I have an understanding of one could feel the need for it.

A pretty, rich, successful, Olympian would be worth a gigantic fortune as a hostage for ransom. Enough to secure the future of a dozen families. Pistorius doesn’t strike me as the brightest of chaps, but he would have to be a complete idiot to not realise that.

a pretty rich successful Olympian with a beautiful model girlfriend .. why wouldn’t you do everything you can to protect yourself?

Arts said:

Rule 303 said:

roughbarked said:

perhaps so but did you buy a gun?

No, but I have an understanding of one could feel the need for it.

A pretty, rich, successful, Olympian would be worth a gigantic fortune as a hostage for ransom. Enough to secure the future of a dozen families. Pistorius doesn’t strike me as the brightest of chaps, but he would have to be a complete idiot to not realise that.

a pretty rich successful Olympian with a beautiful model girlfriend .. why wouldn’t you do everything you can to protect yourself?

The argument appears to be about how well he was protecting his beautiful model girlfriend.

roughbarked said:

Arts said:

Rule 303 said:

No, but I have an understanding of one could feel the need for it.

A pretty, rich, successful, Olympian would be worth a gigantic fortune as a hostage for ransom. Enough to secure the future of a dozen families. Pistorius doesn’t strike me as the brightest of chaps, but he would have to be a complete idiot to not realise that.

a pretty rich successful Olympian with a beautiful model girlfriend .. why wouldn’t you do everything you can to protect yourself?

The argument appears to be about how well he was protecting his beautiful model girlfriend.

Looks loke the level of protection from gun-crazy, big-headed, short-tempered psychopaths was pretty poor, indeed.

captain_spalding said:

roughbarked said:

Arts said:

a pretty rich successful Olympian with a beautiful model girlfriend .. why wouldn’t you do everything you can to protect yourself?

The argument appears to be about how well he was protecting his beautiful model girlfriend.

Looks loke the level of protection from gun-crazy, big-headed, short-tempered psychopaths was pretty poor, indeed.

I am not any of those things, but I will do what I can to protect my family. Since I am the only line of defence I will, and have, considered harm to intruders.

>considered harm to intruders.

Speaking of intruders and intrusions, when do such matters as being discussed become others’ business, and what makes them public property (open to speculation by anybody), and at what point do they become public property this way, meaning of that to do with the media contribution?

And really doesn’t the media make it available to an interesting mixed bag of speculations, appealing to a lot of twisted underbelief and overbelief, mechanisms of envy, the full array of dodgy moralizings and indifferences possible?

transition said:

>considered harm to intruders.

Speaking of intruders and intrusions, when do such matters as being discussed become others’ business, and what makes them public property (open to speculation by anybody), and at what point do they become public property this way, meaning of that to do with the media contribution?

And really doesn’t the media make it available to an interesting mixed bag of speculations, appealing to a lot of twisted underbelief and overbelief, mechanisms of envy, the full array of dodgy moralizings and indifferences possible?

I think it is because they are shoved in our faces. It is much the same as if your next door neighbour’s domestics that come through the walls. It literally cannot be escaped.

Arts said:

mollwollfumble said:

I’m a compulsive liar, too.
Oh wait, no I’m not.
Both of the above statements are false.

> Polygraphs are so easy to beat.

Not easy. Each individual component is easy to beat on its own, but not together if your life depends on whether you beat the polygraph or not.

there is a reason why they aren’t accepted as ‘evidence’ in a court.. they can be supporting but not hard evidence… Your life will never hinge on a polygraph.

Maybe your job will though