The shooting of Reeva Steenkamp by Oscar Pistorius on Valentine's Day is garnering world-wide attention, and it's no wonder: it pushes every button.
First, there's the "modern miracle" button. The author of nearly every story I've ever read about this case feels duty-bound to mention that Pistorious is a double-amputee Olympian. The fact that he uses modern technology to accomplish what most of us do on a daily basis is no longer newsworthy. It would be like mentioning in every story about Nicole Simpson's murder that O.J. Simpson was severely near-sighted and only able to play professional football because of technologically advanced hydrophilic contact lenses. (I don't know if Simpson wore contacts -- it's just a hypothetical.)
Speaking of O.J., this is the Simpson case all over again. Renowned athlete kills girlfriend. Incompetent police detectives botch initial stages of investigation. Fortunately we'll be spared a jury trial that makes a nation scream about nullification and berate black jurors -- South Africa does not have jury trials for criminal cases.
Next button: prosecutorial overreach. It is preposterous for prosecutors to claim that the murder was premeditated because Pistorius walked seven meters with a gun. The evidence presented at the initial hearing supports manslaughter or second-degree murder at best (domestic argument turns into murder). The reason they jacked up the charges is because they wanted to deny Pistorius bail, for fear that he'll flee the country (which is not an unreasonable fear -- his job takes him out of the country constantly, and the guy can run really fast). Now, if it turns that Pistorius told the workman who left the ladder leaning against his bathroom window to knock off work early, providing a rationale for why he would be shooting blindly into the bathroom, then the case for premeditation gets a whole lot better. But as long as Pistorius has to surrender his passport and running blades, his ability to flee should be sufficiently reduced.
Next button: scary black dude. Pistorius says he mistook his blonde white girlfriend for a scary black dude -- a scary black dude that he never saw. It's not clear what Steenkamp was doing in the bathroom that set Pistorius off. Was she taking a huge steaming dump that made the whole house smell like a Soweto slum? Did she pass gas with such amazing volume that made Pistorius believe only a huge home intruder could have possibly made such a trumpeting blast?
Next button: shoot first, ask questions later. This is the inherent problem with guns in the home, and it happens all the time. Last December a Minnesota a pastor shot his granddaughter out on the patio. He has since been charged with intentional discharge of a firearm and endangering safety. I don't know if South Africa has a such a law, but shooting blindly into a bathroom door without making any attempt at all to find out who is in there is a reckless and dangerous act, worthy of a charge of criminally negligent involuntary manslaughter at a minimum. Pistorius claims he thought someone might have been in the bathroom because a workman left a ladder leaning against the house. This is like killing a pedestrian while roaring down a residential street at 100 miles an hour because you thought you heard a car chasing you, and you saw one parked alongside the road a mile back.
Next button: destruction of forensic evidence. Pistorius claims he shot Steenkamp through the door without his prosthetic legs. The prosecution says Pistorius put on the prosthetics first and then fired. Forensic examination of the door should provide some evidence along these lines: one assumes that Pistorius is somewhat taller in prosthetics. So, did he break the door apart to hide that fact? Maybe things are different in South Africa, but in every American home I've been in, bathroom doors can be unlocked from the outside with a safety pin or paper clip. Did he really need a cricket bat to break down the door? Pistorius also picked Steenkamp up and carried her downstairs "to render assistance." Was that after he took the time to put on his prosthetics? After he called for an ambulance, ignoring the two iPhones in the bathroom and two Blackberries in the bedroom? The last thing I'd want to do is carry an injured person around -- the most important thing to do is stop the bleeding and get paramedics on the scene ASAP. Isn't the bathroom where you keep bandages, gauze pads and tape that you'd use to stop the bleeding?
Next button: incessant weeping. Man, is Pistorius a crybaby. Every story about Pistorius' hearing mentions how he is constantly bawling. Right after he shot Steenkamp Pistorius whimpered on the phone. He wailed at press conferences. He wept during the hearings. I suppose it's better than looking like a stone-faced sociopath, but come on. He's supposed to be a tough guy who overcame such adversity, a swaggering macho gun nut who had applied for six more gun licenses three weeks before shooting Steenkamp (his first application, five years ago, was rejected). Is the crying all an act, or is this guy really that emotionally unbalanced and overwrought, maybe strung out on steroids or some other kind of drugs? Doesn't it seem quite possible that such an emotional person would snap and shoot his girlfriend? Is his excessive emotionalism why his application for a gun license was initially denied? (It requires three character references, including a neighbor and a relative.)
At this point it's impossible to know for sure whether Pistorius is lying or telling the truth. If he's lying, is he a self-promoting celebrity stone-cold killer and cynical manipulator, or a hot-head who just can't stop bawling? If he's telling the truth, is he a puling coward or a hair-trigger menace to society?
In the end Oscar Pistorius is the perfect cautionary tale against the all-guns all-the-time mindset of the NRA.
No comments:
Post a Comment