Oscar Pistorius shoots girlfriend
Discussion
TTmonkey said:
yes but what you say on Twitter or PH is usually far from the real truth..... I've read that twitter statement and I just thought 'you tool' for stating that online.
We've all heard noises at night that requires investigation. You always always alert the misses as to the possiblity that you suspect theres someone around. You dont sneak out of the bed, get a weapon, and do some ninja bad guy hinting stuff without letting them know.
I certainly wouldn't. If she's sound asleep and I woke her up she'd most proably shout the place down asking what the fWe've all heard noises at night that requires investigation. You always always alert the misses as to the possiblity that you suspect theres someone around. You dont sneak out of the bed, get a weapon, and do some ninja bad guy hinting stuff without letting them know.
k I was doing. Far better to leave her asleep and investigate the noise my self.ajl.
KTF said:
TheSnitch said:
Hmmm - you know that ''taking them by surprize and shooting them'' thing you mention?
There's a name for that. It's called Murder. Just sayin'
If you believe that person shouldn't be in your house and may be armed and out to shoot you then it might be called something else.There's a name for that. It's called Murder. Just sayin'
TheSnitch said:
You are clearly watching a different case to the one the legal expert commenting on Sky is watching. He seems to believe, as do I, that basically Nel has succeeded in establishing Intent, which establishes that Reeva was murdered.
Intent to shoot at the door - and, by extension the person behind it - but not at RS personaly.ajl.
AJL308 said:
TTmonkey said:
yes but what you say on Twitter or PH is usually far from the real truth..... I've read that twitter statement and I just thought 'you tool' for stating that online.
We've all heard noises at night that requires investigation. You always always alert the misses as to the possiblity that you suspect theres someone around. You dont sneak out of the bed, get a weapon, and do some ninja bad guy hinting stuff without letting them know.
I certainly wouldn't. If she's sound asleep and I woke her up she'd most proably shout the place down asking what the fWe've all heard noises at night that requires investigation. You always always alert the misses as to the possiblity that you suspect theres someone around. You dont sneak out of the bed, get a weapon, and do some ninja bad guy hinting stuff without letting them know.
k I was doing. Far better to leave her asleep and investigate the noise my self.AJL308 said:
TheSnitch said:
You are clearly watching a different case to the one the legal expert commenting on Sky is watching. He seems to believe, as do I, that basically Nel has succeeded in establishing Intent, which establishes that Reeva was murdered.
Intent to shoot at the door - and, by extension the person behind it - but not at RS personaly.2) Doesn't matter who he thought it was if his intent was to kill them
TheSnitch said:
I have emboldened the salient point for you; I was quoting the SA legal expert. . I have seen Sky use three different South African legal experts and they all seem to be very much of the same opinion, so I set more store by their opinion.
The prosecution has to establish that Pistorius acted with the intent to take a life. The fact that he has admitted going towards the ''danger'' rather did for him, as did his claim that he thought the door was opening, so he shot the hell out of it
No, this is the point which you are consistently missing. To make their case they have to show that he intended to take the life of Reeva Steenkamp, specifically. Now, if they can't show that he can still be convicted of a lesser form of murder or a lesser unlawful death offence but not of the pre-meditated (which has a specific meaning in SA law) murder of RS. The prosecution has to establish that Pistorius acted with the intent to take a life. The fact that he has admitted going towards the ''danger'' rather did for him, as did his claim that he thought the door was opening, so he shot the hell out of it
AJL308 said:
TheSnitch said:
I have emboldened the salient point for you; I was quoting the SA legal expert. . I have seen Sky use three different South African legal experts and they all seem to be very much of the same opinion, so I set more store by their opinion.
The prosecution has to establish that Pistorius acted with the intent to take a life. The fact that he has admitted going towards the ''danger'' rather did for him, as did his claim that he thought the door was opening, so he shot the hell out of it
No, this is the point which you are consistently missing. To make their case they have to show that he intended to take the life of Reeva Steenkamp, specifically. Now, if they can't show that he can still be convicted of a lesser form of murder or a lesser unlawful death offence but not of the pre-meditated (which has a specific meaning in SA law) murder of RS. The prosecution has to establish that Pistorius acted with the intent to take a life. The fact that he has admitted going towards the ''danger'' rather did for him, as did his claim that he thought the door was opening, so he shot the hell out of it
But I'd add I'm no legal expert, let alone a South African legal expert.
AJL308 said:
TheSnitch said:
I have emboldened the salient point for you; I was quoting the SA legal expert. . I have seen Sky use three different South African legal experts and they all seem to be very much of the same opinion, so I set more store by their opinion.
The prosecution has to establish that Pistorius acted with the intent to take a life. The fact that he has admitted going towards the ''danger'' rather did for him, as did his claim that he thought the door was opening, so he shot the hell out of it
No, this is the point which you are consistently missing. To make their case they have to show that he intended to take the life of Reeva Steenkamp, specifically. Now, if they can't show that he can still be convicted of a lesser form of murder or a lesser unlawful death offence but not of the pre-meditated (which has a specific meaning in SA law) murder of RS. The prosecution has to establish that Pistorius acted with the intent to take a life. The fact that he has admitted going towards the ''danger'' rather did for him, as did his claim that he thought the door was opening, so he shot the hell out of it
This is from the article Eddie cited earlier. I'll just leave it here
cited article said:
Murder: murder is the unlawful and intentional killing of another human being. This means the accused must have intended to kill another human being without any legal justification/excuse for doing so. As we can see from this definition, an error in the identity of one’s victim is not enough to free them from a charge of murder. For example, if I intend to shoot and kill person A but the bullet instead hits and kills person B, I may still be found guilty of murder despite my intending to kill person A and not person B. Therefore, it is no excuse for Oscar to say that he intended to kill an intruder, not Reeva.
TheSnitch said:
Well, not really
He was asked if he had ever been a victim of crime at his home, and he said no, apart from when 'the police stole his watches'
But if he'd said 'no' then some smart arse would have chirped-up pointing out that that amounted to yet another lie from him.He was asked if he had ever been a victim of crime at his home, and he said no, apart from when 'the police stole his watches'
ajl.
AJL308 said:
TheSnitch said:
Well, not really
He was asked if he had ever been a victim of crime at his home, and he said no, apart from when 'the police stole his watches'
But if he'd said 'no' then some smart arse would have chirped-up pointing out that that amounted to yet another lie from him.He was asked if he had ever been a victim of crime at his home, and he said no, apart from when 'the police stole his watches'
ZR1cliff said:
Very much so. Not one bit of compassion from the mother when he sobs, pukes or whatever. The mother knows it's an act and so will the judge.
Lots of people have said he's putting on an act. I don't know many actors who can vomit on command though. In fact, I don't know of any.ajl.
I have to wonder how he managed to hit her three times out of four, with a hand gun,in the dark,when she was behind a door.
How would he know where to shoot,if the first round hit anything apart from her head, she would have screamed out and he would have stopped,if the first round was a head shot,she would have dropped, which would have needed to re aim to shoot something lower to the floor.
I am amazed he managed to hit an un sighted target,three out of four times,
When I used to shoot targets,with hand guns, I was happy to hit a target in full view, let alone un sighted.
How would he know where to shoot,if the first round hit anything apart from her head, she would have screamed out and he would have stopped,if the first round was a head shot,she would have dropped, which would have needed to re aim to shoot something lower to the floor.
I am amazed he managed to hit an un sighted target,three out of four times,
When I used to shoot targets,with hand guns, I was happy to hit a target in full view, let alone un sighted.
AJL308 said:
ZR1cliff said:
Very much so. Not one bit of compassion from the mother when he sobs, pukes or whatever. The mother knows it's an act and so will the judge.
Lots of people have said he's putting on an act. I don't know many actors who can vomit on command though. In fact, I don't know of any.ajl.
SuperDude said:
Because that's what stupid egomaniacs do. He cornered her in the toilet, tried battering the door down with a cricket bat, then grabbed his 'zombie killer' gun to hammer his point home.
I honestly don't believe he intended to kill her, only to frighten. I know a man who's of a similar temperament. Once his temper goes, there's no telling how far he'll take it to make his point. He's not an intimidating man by nature, he's actually a bit of a clown, but there in lies the issue. His insecurity leads him to inflict serious injury after over shooting the mark by several hundred miles.
OP strikes me as a similar character. He's not a cold blooded psychopath, but deeply stupid little boy punching well above his weight and suffering all the temper tantrums you'd see in a jealous boyfriend.
Of course, this is all IMHO.
Point is that both sides appear to agree that the bat was used after the shots were fired.I honestly don't believe he intended to kill her, only to frighten. I know a man who's of a similar temperament. Once his temper goes, there's no telling how far he'll take it to make his point. He's not an intimidating man by nature, he's actually a bit of a clown, but there in lies the issue. His insecurity leads him to inflict serious injury after over shooting the mark by several hundred miles.
OP strikes me as a similar character. He's not a cold blooded psychopath, but deeply stupid little boy punching well above his weight and suffering all the temper tantrums you'd see in a jealous boyfriend.
Of course, this is all IMHO.
AJL308 said:
ZR1cliff said:
Very much so. Not one bit of compassion from the mother when he sobs, pukes or whatever. The mother knows it's an act and so will the judge.
Lots of people have said he's putting on an act. I don't know many actors who can vomit on command though. In fact, I don't know of any.Simblade said:
Sorry I missed if it's been said before but exactly where was O.P. standing when the shots were fired. If he fired directly straight at the toilet door there's a good chance the shot would have went through the toilet wall and across the head of the bed looking at this picture.
Perhaps not a point that will send him down but it's something I always imagine I'd consider if firing a gun. Especially if the person I was trying to protect was anywhere near the firing arc. The guy is an idiot whatever happened. I'm so glad of the gun laws in our country.
That looks to be a solid wall as part of it is external. You wouldn't be able to shoot through that. Perhaps not a point that will send him down but it's something I always imagine I'd consider if firing a gun. Especially if the person I was trying to protect was anywhere near the firing arc. The guy is an idiot whatever happened. I'm so glad of the gun laws in our country.
zoom star said:
I have to wonder how he managed to hit her three times out of four, with a hand gun,in the dark,when she was behind a door.
How would he know where to shoot,if the first round hit anything apart from her head, she would have screamed out and he would have stopped,if the first round was a head shot,she would have dropped, which would have needed to re aim to shoot something lower to the floor.
I am amazed he managed to hit an un sighted target,three out of four times,
When I used to shoot targets,with hand guns, I was happy to hit a target in full view, let alone un sighted.
She was stood facing the door. The first shot hit her in the hip, throwing her backwards onto the magazine rack, where she slumped down to sitting level. She put her hands to her head, where the second third and fourth shots hit her in the arm and the head, blowing her brains out. One shot missed. How would he know where to shoot,if the first round hit anything apart from her head, she would have screamed out and he would have stopped,if the first round was a head shot,she would have dropped, which would have needed to re aim to shoot something lower to the floor.
I am amazed he managed to hit an un sighted target,three out of four times,
When I used to shoot targets,with hand guns, I was happy to hit a target in full view, let alone un sighted.
Bloody lucky shots, or conversly, bloody unlucky.
TTmonkey said:
I would suggest that when she fled from him he probably didn't have the gun.... She fled from a screaming angry man and went to the place most women would go to... The lockable toilet. He probably chased her, couldn't get her to open it, and then retrieved the gun to scare the sh*te out of her or indeed maybe shoot at her in a rage.
The evidence of the shooting itself seems to have her standing up close to the locked door. If she had merely gone to the loo she would have been sitting on it or if had finished she would have been making normal toilet noises like flushing etc. why was she stood up at the locked door? If she had finished she would have been making noises that would have shown OP that it wasn't a burglar.
On the issue of the closed, locked door.... If this was normal behaviour for the woman fine. But surely if she was locking the door she would have put on the light? What person sits in small locked room to go to the toilet, but doesn't put on the light?
According to OP this woman snuck out of bed when his back was turned, proceeded to the bathroom in the dark, locked the door in the dark, sat and did her toilet thing, made some noises like a burglar, failed to respond when he screamed his warnings, and stood against the door whilst he shot at it/her. All the while OP says he was telling the woman he maintains was still in the bed in his mind to get on the floor and call the police, and that person never responded to him, even to say something like 'be careful Oscar' to the threat of the violent burglars which have stopped to take a quick sh*t during the attack on poor helpless man with no legs......
Not sure what planet OP thinks he's on with any of His defence.
Me for starters. My other half too. Puting on a light in pitch blackness hurts your eyes! The evidence of the shooting itself seems to have her standing up close to the locked door. If she had merely gone to the loo she would have been sitting on it or if had finished she would have been making normal toilet noises like flushing etc. why was she stood up at the locked door? If she had finished she would have been making noises that would have shown OP that it wasn't a burglar.
On the issue of the closed, locked door.... If this was normal behaviour for the woman fine. But surely if she was locking the door she would have put on the light? What person sits in small locked room to go to the toilet, but doesn't put on the light?
According to OP this woman snuck out of bed when his back was turned, proceeded to the bathroom in the dark, locked the door in the dark, sat and did her toilet thing, made some noises like a burglar, failed to respond when he screamed his warnings, and stood against the door whilst he shot at it/her. All the while OP says he was telling the woman he maintains was still in the bed in his mind to get on the floor and call the police, and that person never responded to him, even to say something like 'be careful Oscar' to the threat of the violent burglars which have stopped to take a quick sh*t during the attack on poor helpless man with no legs......
Not sure what planet OP thinks he's on with any of His defence.
AJL308 said:
TTmonkey said:
I would suggest that when she fled from him he probably didn't have the gun.... She fled from a screaming angry man and went to the place most women would go to... The lockable toilet. He probably chased her, couldn't get her to open it, and then retrieved the gun to scare the sh*te out of her or indeed maybe shoot at her in a rage.
The evidence of the shooting itself seems to have her standing up close to the locked door. If she had merely gone to the loo she would have been sitting on it or if had finished she would have been making normal toilet noises like flushing etc. why was she stood up at the locked door? If she had finished she would have been making noises that would have shown OP that it wasn't a burglar.
On the issue of the closed, locked door.... If this was normal behaviour for the woman fine. But surely if she was locking the door she would have put on the light? What person sits in small locked room to go to the toilet, but doesn't put on the light?
According to OP this woman snuck out of bed when his back was turned, proceeded to the bathroom in the dark, locked the door in the dark, sat and did her toilet thing, made some noises like a burglar, failed to respond when he screamed his warnings, and stood against the door whilst he shot at it/her. All the while OP says he was telling the woman he maintains was still in the bed in his mind to get on the floor and call the police, and that person never responded to him, even to say something like 'be careful Oscar' to the threat of the violent burglars which have stopped to take a quick sh*t during the attack on poor helpless man with no legs......
Not sure what planet OP thinks he's on with any of His defence.
Me for starters. My other half too. Puting on a light in pitch blackness hurts your eyes! The evidence of the shooting itself seems to have her standing up close to the locked door. If she had merely gone to the loo she would have been sitting on it or if had finished she would have been making normal toilet noises like flushing etc. why was she stood up at the locked door? If she had finished she would have been making noises that would have shown OP that it wasn't a burglar.
On the issue of the closed, locked door.... If this was normal behaviour for the woman fine. But surely if she was locking the door she would have put on the light? What person sits in small locked room to go to the toilet, but doesn't put on the light?
According to OP this woman snuck out of bed when his back was turned, proceeded to the bathroom in the dark, locked the door in the dark, sat and did her toilet thing, made some noises like a burglar, failed to respond when he screamed his warnings, and stood against the door whilst he shot at it/her. All the while OP says he was telling the woman he maintains was still in the bed in his mind to get on the floor and call the police, and that person never responded to him, even to say something like 'be careful Oscar' to the threat of the violent burglars which have stopped to take a quick sh*t during the attack on poor helpless man with no legs......
Not sure what planet OP thinks he's on with any of His defence.
TheSnitch said:
I don't know if anyone else has felt this but I think the evidence which has hurt Pistorius most of all is his own. The defence seemed to be doing a lot better before he opened his mouth. When he is asked a question he seems incapable of answering it without rambling on and dropping himself further and further into the st.
t. Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff