I've got something bothering me and I feel I need to share it.
I tried my best to ignore the Oscar Pistorius trial. It's unfair, in my opinion, that this murder trial receives such attention. What makes it special? Why should we care more because the defendant is well known and somewhat respected? Hundreds of similar cases go unnoticed every year. It's surely then a disservice to the other victims that I now selfishly care because I've been dumb enough to fall into the News24 trap and have allowed myself to form an opinion? Surely each victim, and defendant for that matter, deserves the right to be represented in court and to have confidence to allow the judicial system should run it's course and subsequently issue fair judgement? Surely I should then share that confidence and reserve judgement until the system has run its course?
That's what I used to think. Until recently...
I listening intently as the Oscar Pistorius affidavit was read out during his bail application. He deserved a chance to deliver his version of events. He deserved the chance to defend himself from the unwarrented public condemnation. After all, there were some dreadful things being written about him. The media was at work. Nevertheless, I reserved judgement and laughed off all the gossip, I snubbed the ineptitiude of News24 and bumbled along in my ignorance emerging unscathed at the trial. Admittedly I did sometimes skip through the comments sections. Avoiding intelligent conversation instead rather choosing to laugh at the irrational.
His version was one of regret. Aaaahhhh shame. Boo hoo.
Firstly, Oscar claims he fired through a closed door into an enclosed cubicle intending to hit and kill what he thought was an intruder. A Burglar. So many people thinks this is ok. So many people sympathise. Our crime rate is so high. Why can't a man protect him household? Why can't a man protect his family? Of course he can. He can't, however, shoot through a closed door into a tiny cubicle trying to kill someone who no longer poses an immediate threat to his life, or to anyone elses for that matter. That's not ok. The door was locked. There was no threat. That's what I would describe as murder. Cold blooded premeditated murder.
Secondly, Oscars defence will argue that the witnesses lived too far away from his house to hear the couple arguing. If that is in fact what the they were doing. They will argue that screams coming from Reeva while she was being attacked would be muffled by the cubicle she was enclosed in. They do, to be fair, live over one hundred meters away. I agree with that. It's completely feasible however Oscar also claims he called for Reeva before he fired. Surely she would have heard him even from behind the closed batthroom door? Surely she would have responded? How did she not hear his calls? It's ludicrous.
I apologise for having an opinion. I apologise for not trusting the system. I don't even understand the system.
I won't however apologize for having an obstinant unyeilding abhorrence towards people who fire through a closed door trying to kill someone who poses no threat to them. It just can't, in my opinion, be justified. Regardless of circumstance. Regardless of anything.
If Oscar had killed a burglar he may have been branded a hero. People may have even considered him the victim.
That is my problem.