If Sandy's anything like me, she "got hooked" and wound up fully intending upon not posting only to arrive with a couple of spare hours and an internet connection someplace new ... and ended up doing just that.
Prolific posters are prolific for the reason of being addicted to posting IMO lol :D
I wouldn't say it was a matter of integrity, rather will power being in short supply, but at least, this is not a crime.
The road to hell, after all, is paved with good intentions... ;-)
I completely agree. Don't EVER think you can't post because you've said you won't, either of you.:)
oh just a reminder , remember the first police media conference after OP's arrest outside Silverwoods,-.here it is again. -.takes it all back to the staaraaartvanardt:o:p VT -POLICE MEDIA CONFERENCE OUTSIDE SILVERWOODS 14/2
LE confirms that a shooting took place at OP's house and that a 30 year old woman died on scene of gunshot wounds. A 26 year old has been arrested. (They didn't say it was OP but just kept saying that the incident took place at his house.)
The 26 yo has been taken for a medical exam (I read in other reports that he was extremely distraught) and will appear before the magistrate at 2:00.
When asked if the arrested individual has ever been involved in earlier incidents involving LE, particularly any related to assault or domestic abuse, LE responded that they wouldn't say anything specific to the person arrested but they would say that they had indeed been involved in previous incidents at the home of OP.
Regarding comments coming up in the media about a situation where he shot the woman mistakenly believing she was an intruder did not come from LE. Their forensic investigation is ongoing.
Paralympian Oscar Pistorius will only appear in the Pretoria Magistrate's Court on Friday."He will be kept in police custody," said National Prosecuting Authority official Medupe Simasiku. Bail will be opposed when Pistorius appears, police spokesperson Brigadier Denise Beukes told reporters earlier. She declined to elaborate.
Pistorius' model girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp was shot dead in his Pretoria home in the early hours of Thursday. Pistorius was held at the Boschkop police station in the morning, then seen by a Sapa reporter at the Mamelodi Day Clinic after a high speed convoy drove him there.
His sister Aimee was seen arriving with a jacket and white trousers, presumed to be for his court appearance.His lawyer Kenny Oldwage was expected to apply for bail.
Speaking generally, and without commenting specifically on Pistorius, Beukes said it was a routine process for a suspect to be taken for a medical examination in such cases."The person is taken for a medical examination. It is a standard procedure," she said."They [hospital staff] test under the nails, they look for scratches, bruises, and blood is taken for alcohol and drug screening." Pistorius was co-operating with police.
Beukes said there had been incidents of domestic violence at his house."I confirm there had been previous incidents of a domestic nature at his place, but this will form part of the investigation," she said.There was no sign of forced entry into Pretorius' house and reports that the woman was shot after she was mistaken for an intruder did not emanate from police.
"As the SA Police Service, we do not have a report based on those allegations. We only heard over the radio that the woman was shot after she was mistaken for an intruder." Beukes added later: "The surprise was that the information was given to the media. The police did not provide the information." Beukes said forensic detectives were collecting evidence from the crime scene and journalists would not be allowed inside until police handed over the scene to the estate's security company.
Sounds like the Pistorii got the PR machine out PDQ
It doesn't 'ruin integrity' - we'll just believe it when we see it, and I WANT Sandy and Moniker to keep posting, so I don't care at all if they stay, whatever they say.
I'm always on a diet and I've given up smoking every day for years an all. I've got great integrity though in other things.:D
But you can not say that it gives this threads detractors no validity
I have defended this threads integrity.
[1] Female screams is true = end of case.
or
[2] There's doubt there, it might have been him BUT then lets look at the time of the first gunshots, and go through step by step all his behaviours after.
In conjunction with everything else, [2] is a very damning collection of indicators toward guilt, 7 minutes until phone call to Stander (not even emergency then lol).
This is the key "head" missing from Nel's arguments but hopefully the assessors will put 2 and 2 together, because i'm sure they don't plan on letting OP of the hook lightly.
If there's a "reasonable possibility", obviously you would, but having sat through all his evidence, I doubt you want to give him a pass without thinking things through well. It would be not only very bad for R.S. but also would mean he was "smarter" than them and had "tricked" them into buying his story. Most people will resist this quite hard if they have the distinct impression it is bullshit they will look for ways to prove it beyond doubt lol ;-)
Obviously his "mistake shots" and "acting automatically" is one of the absolutely critical factors, because it's something very concrete that the court would reject unless there is very good evidence laid down [defence counsel can't just say last day of the the case "so yeah he acted automatically, not responsible m'lady". That's a joke. The presumption is voluntary control every time - same rules for OP as the rest of us! You need a proper investigation into your "blackout" but he contradicted himself anyway by remembering the pace of the shots.
It's of central importance that he be trustworthy when talking about firing the gun so dropping the ball on that one is a pretty big deal I think.
I think automatism will seal the deal for the state, but they got lucky on this occasion, despite their own cock-ups (viz. 3:17 time point - and those of police), the defendant asserted a logical contradiction in the middle of his shooting evidence, making life easier for them. It's more like OP making his own downfall though...
Probably dumb question but ......... could OP have chosen to not to take the stand ?
I too have utter respect for Sandy. My post history would suggest that to anyone who wanted to compare our thoughts.
But I am not here to be pally or arse lick.
More than one have said goodbye for a time only to continue posting.
It can ruin integrity when it is from the most prolific and respected posters in a thread.
ooo-errr,-- Actually -- I stopped off at my parents.......then a friends for then night....- and they have tinternet, so I couldn't resist - you can call them if you want to verify that I've been pain in the ar*se wanting to pop on !:cool::D
Don't be such a scroooge
(I will get you to sign my absence note before I post again ) xx (you're supposed to be stress-free - maaaan btw)
Probably dumb question but ......... could OP have chosen to not to take the stand ?
In theory yes - in practice no. He was pleading putative private defense at the time, and for that it was extremely important that he persuade the court that he really DID think there was an intruder.
If he hadn't testified then his story could not have 'stood up' - the court needed to know 'what was in his mind'.
This is also to do with the onus being on the Defense to 'prove' that he thought what he thought.
This is very badly put, I'm sure someone else can explain it better, but I hope you get the jist.
Also I think they needed to use OP to capitalize on his fame, and his disability, thus they used him as a character witness for himself.
"The lawyers can talk, theorize or suggest on the evidence and testimony presented but in the end it comes down to this for me. If I am in a dark room with my lover on Valentines Day and I hear a sound I will ask my lover, "did you hear that?" (since Pistorius, through testimony, now confirms the now deceased was awake). Oscar Pistorius didn't do that. Getting no response I might nudge or reach over to see if my lover is there before grabbing a gun, hobbling on stumps and blasting away.
A physical disability is not an excuse for abandoning common sense. Oscar Pistorius managed to become a successful and wealthy athlete so he has common sense. He's personally challenged the idea of disability by lobbying to be included in the Olympics.
A thorough psychiatric exam proves that he was not suffering from any mental illness that impaired his judgement due to his disability. So that leaves us with this...how is it rational or legal to use deadly force when there was no apparent threat as the supposed intruder was locked in a toilet cubicle and OP had a gun and a route out of his bedroom? He seemed to move around quite effectively on his stumps. He could have told the victim to exit the bedroom and followed. If there had been an intruder who exited the cubicle THEY would have been at a disadvantage, not OP. OP had guns training. Nothing in his guns training ever told him this was the right course.
The fact that he had no idea his victim was in the toilet cubicle is beyond comprehension. The first time a bullet struck her would have rendered a cry from her.
What really stands out for me is the fact that his victim locked herself in the toilet cubicle with her mobile phone. Who goes to the bathroom WITH THEIR MOBILE PHONE at that hour and LOCKS the door? The only person who does that is someone under attack. Getting back to the simple and obvious, Oscar Pistorius' victim was under attack. If the judge finds any other conclusion then it's a travesty of justice."
Hey !! Wake up you loons ! Don't you know how close you came to falling off the front page ?
I may not post, but you load of 'loons' have been amazing!! Decent, interesting, non-confrontational, respectful, insightful, committed and dignified....so what, really, is the problem???
It really is so sad that a bunch of people that are interested in something are suddenly weird and outside of the parameters of normal human conduct. No one here said anyone else should care, no one advised that others should find this particular killing fascinating, no one anywhere has said anything at all that demands the attention of 'the other'.
FMs are simply communicating about something they are interested in.....yup, the world has clearly gone quite mad!
Hey though, they've closed the pernicious and contentious thread....sanity has been restored !!??
In theory yes - in practice no. He was pleading putative private defense at the time, and for that it was extremely important that he persuade the court that he really DID think there was an intruder.
If he hadn't testified then his story could not have 'stood up' - the court needed to know 'what was in his mind'.
This is also to do with the onus being on the Defense to 'prove' that he thought what he thought.
This is very badly put, I'm sure someone else can explain it better, but I hope you get the jist.
Also I think they needed to use OP to capitalize on his fame, and his disability, thus they used him as a character witness for himself.
That all went really well for the defense mind:o
I know what you mean. Also the pesky neighbours hearing the row was an issue anyway. I'm sort of thinking what would OP do now if he could rerun it all from the moments after he shot her ? Wonder how much "what if" he might be doing. Not sure much regret or self-doubt creeps into his thoughts though.
I know what you mean. Also the pesky neighbours hearing the row was an issue anyway. I'm sort of thinking what would OP do now if he could rerun it all from the moments after he shot her ? Wonder how much "what if" he might be doing. Not sure much regret or self-doubt creeps into his thoughts though.
I'm fairly sure he's blaming the Stipps, and may be underlining their names in his little black book of revenge, or sticking pins in a doll or something.
And of course the same with Nel.
And that he doesn't think he's done or said anything wrong at all. It's a conspiricy, I tell ye, UNFAIR, everyone should be on his side, and believe him.
'Infamy, INFAMY, they've all got it in for me' SOB and dream about using guns, and curse a bit.
oh just a reminder , remember the first police media conference after OP's arrest outside Silverwoods,-.here it is again. -.takes it all back to the staaraaartvanardt:o:p VT -POLICE MEDIA CONFERENCE OUTSIDE SILVERWOODS 14/2
LE confirms that a shooting took place at OP's house and that a 30 year old woman died on scene of gunshot wounds. A 26 year old has been arrested. (They didn't say it was OP but just kept saying that the incident took place at his house.)
The 26 yo has been taken for a medical exam (I read in other reports that he was extremely distraught) and will appear before the magistrate at 2:00.
When asked if the arrested individual has ever been involved in earlier incidents involving LE, particularly any related to assault or domestic abuse, LE responded that they wouldn't say anything specific to the person arrested but they would say that they had indeed been involved in previous incidents at the home of OP.
Regarding comments coming up in the media about a situation where he shot the woman mistakenly believing she was an intruder did not come from LE. Their forensic investigation is ongoing.
Paralympian Oscar Pistorius will only appear in the Pretoria Magistrate's Court on Friday."He will be kept in police custody," said National Prosecuting Authority official Medupe Simasiku. Bail will be opposed when Pistorius appears, police spokesperson Brigadier Denise Beukes told reporters earlier. She declined to elaborate.
Pistorius' model girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp was shot dead in his Pretoria home in the early hours of Thursday. Pistorius was held at the Boschkop police station in the morning, then seen by a Sapa reporter at the Mamelodi Day Clinic after a high speed convoy drove him there.
His sister Aimee was seen arriving with a jacket and white trousers, presumed to be for his court appearance.His lawyer Kenny Oldwage was expected to apply for bail.
Speaking generally, and without commenting specifically on Pistorius, Beukes said it was a routine process for a suspect to be taken for a medical examination in such cases."The person is taken for a medical examination. It is a standard procedure," she said."They [hospital staff] test under the nails, they look for scratches, bruises, and blood is taken for alcohol and drug screening." Pistorius was co-operating with police.
Beukes said there had been incidents of domestic violence at his house."I confirm there had been previous incidents of a domestic nature at his place, but this will form part of the investigation," she said.There was no sign of forced entry into Pretorius' house and reports that the woman was shot after she was mistaken for an intruder did not emanate from police.
"As the SA Police Service, we do not have a report based on those allegations. We only heard over the radio that the woman was shot after she was mistaken for an intruder." Beukes added later: "The surprise was that the information was given to the media. The police did not provide the information." Beukes said forensic detectives were collecting evidence from the crime scene and journalists would not be allowed inside until police handed over the scene to the estate's security company.
I wonder if information about these previous visits to his house will come out after conviction? like previous convictions here.
I'm fairly sure he's blaming the Stipps, and may be underlining their names in his little black book of revenge, or sticking pins in a doll or something.
And of course the same with Nel.
And that he doesn't think he's done or said anything wrong at all. It's a conspiricy, I tell ye, UNFAIR, everyone should be on his side, and believe him.
'Infamy, INFAMY, they've all got it in for me' SOB and dream about using guns, and curse a bit.
He's ripe for a good ole startle in my opinion.
I bet he wishes he'd shot her as soon as the argument started !! Less distressed bedroom scene, bugger all for the neighbours to hear, probably not have to shoot through a door. Yes .... he was far too tolerant that night, must make a mental note to be more decisive next time.
Probably dumb question but ......... could OP have chosen to not to take the stand ?
No one can compel a person to take to the stand but in this case it wouldn't help him to evade it.
The value of a "putative intruder" story, with no other living eyewitnesses, in terms of evidence, is almost none at all, unless he would be prepared to back it up by submitting to questioning and sharing how and why he formed the belief with the court, allowing it to be tested for its truthfulness. It's actually the only way he can "corroborate" his supposed eyewitness version, by allowing an "investigation" into it, in order to make the evidence of a sufficient weight to be accepted.
It would be different if he was acting in genuine self-defence, perhaps a phone call to police just before he was attacked, with witnesses to an assault, and injuries, provoked by the other party. Then he could just sit back and present all that corroborating evidence, to explain fully why he killed someone.
It would be completely different if there had been a genuine break-in and he'd shot RS in the confusion, then the security team had caught the intruders fleeing. Of if RS could testify as well, had she survived.
Then we have independent ways to corroborate his supposed intruder belief.
What reason would OP have for not being willing to talk about what happened to him, provided its true? As the gunman and sole living witness to the occasion of the shots. It wouldn't look good to remain silent - all the inferences would go against him.
So yeah he doesn't have to ... but then again he does. Just no other way to corroborate his claims.
It could have been better to remain silent in the sense that he might have told fewer lies mind you, put on less of a performance and all that kind of stuff. But then if that was his thinking, he should have pled guilty and got the lowest possible sentence on that basis.
What's the point in pleading not guilty and running through a trial if you won't give your (supposed - and unique) eyewitness story?
Case was, therefore, always going to be 90% about OP's testimony and the somewhat mysterious process of assessing his credibility in the telling...;-)
I bet he wishes he'd shot her as soon as the argument started !! Less distressed bedroom scene, bugger all for the neighbours to hear, probably not have to shoot through a door. Yes .... he was far too tolerant that night, must make a mental note to be more decisive next time.
That's the only criticism of himself he's got - he was too damned easy going:o:D
But you can not say that it gives this threads detractors no validity
I have defended this threads integrity.
Does it matter though? Really? It's a thread on a discussion forum not a debate in the House of Lords.
I said I wasn't coming back until Sept 11th....then I got banned for a week and thought "sod that for a game of soldiers" they can put up with me and lump it.
You don't have to defend the thread to anyone. If they don't like it, they can bog off. Right?
SMOKERS (like Rhumba) - what's the matter with you? Start vaping. I haven't had a real **** for almost 2 years, and I never thought I'd stop.
Does it matter though? Really? It's a thread on a discussion forum not a debate in the House of Lords.
I said I wasn't coming back until Sept 11th....then I got banned for a week and thought "sod that for a game of soldiers" they can put up with me and lump it.
You don't have to defend the thread to anyone. If they don't like it, they can bog off. Right?
SMOKERS (like Rhumba) - what's the matter with you? Start vaping. I haven't had a real **** for almost 2 years, and I never thought I'd stop.
I DO vape, in bed and when I've run out of ****.:cool:
Seriously, I'm really trying with the vaping thing, just not totally succeeding.
I may not post, but you load of 'loons' have been amazing!! Decent, interesting, non-confrontational, respectful, insightful, committed and dignified....so what, really, is the problem???
It really is so sad that a bunch of people that are interested in something are suddenly weird and outside of the parameters of normal human conduct. No one here said anyone else should care, no one advised that others should find this particular killing fascinating, no one anywhere has said anything at all that demands the attention of 'the other'.
FMs are simply communicating about something they are interested in.....yup, the world has clearly gone quite mad!
Hey though, they've closed the pernicious and contentious thread....sanity has been restored !!??
Don't hold your breath....
Hi Pixie,
My comment was very firmly tongue-in-cheek. Like you I have been reading for a while and admiring the thread, and have only posted in the last couple of days. I've been stalking the front page for several weeks now waiting to spot the thread drop to the bottom so that I could get my cheeky comment in Not sure how it might have been received if the other moany thread hadn't been posted ! I think the modern parlance for my thoughts on that thread is ....
I bet he wishes he'd shot her as soon as the argument started !! Less distressed bedroom scene, bugger all for the neighbours to hear, probably not have to shoot through a door. Yes .... he was far too tolerant that night, must make a mental note to be more decisive next time.
I'm a bit concerned if trials are televised the whole time, will bona fide premeditated killers learn too much about the process and then know how to go about getting away with it?
This "intruder defence" is very accessible for people, potentially.
I think the judge must bear that in mind.
She can't just turn a blind eye to all the concerns with his evidence, it would be a charter for murder.
She probably ought to rule it as "directus" of the intruder AS WELL in order to discourage others from trying this kind of thing.
Closed door + Four bullets + Connecting passage + Shouts and swears + Firing into small space + No actual threat + No credible subjective threat + knows all the gun laws + sober + superior functioning = directus?
Not a bad precedent for Masipa to set, purely from a legal point of view there's a lot of lines that ought not to be blurred here and I think OP crossed all of them.
THEN she can get on with the business of what actually happened, having dealt in no uncertain terms with the charge level ... in terms of looking like a "heat of the moment" shooting giving rise to "elaborate falsehoods" and leading finally into "absurdities" such as pleading 2 defences at the same time?
It might be quite a sobering day in court for OP if she gets going like I imagine she might be about to lol
On the 13th of February 2013 Reeva would have gone out with her friends and I with my friends. Reeva then called me and asked that we rather spend the evening at home.
Someone asked where this idea came from in prosecution heads - there's your answer ;-)
Comments
I completely agree. Don't EVER think you can't post because you've said you won't, either of you.:)
Sounds like the Pistorii got the PR machine out PDQ
I have defended this threads integrity.
Relax dear stressfree:)
I don't give a flamin' MONKEY's about what a few people with no interest in the actual subject say about the thread.
I just want Sandy and Moniker to keep posting, and it makes me laugh that Moniker leaves on a regular basis.
It's not to do with any sort of 'integrity' that's really important. What's important is the interesting, informative and amusing posts.:)
Probably dumb question but ......... could OP have chosen to not to take the stand ?
Don't be such a scroooge
(I will get you to sign my absence note before I post again ) xx
In theory yes - in practice no. He was pleading putative private defense at the time, and for that it was extremely important that he persuade the court that he really DID think there was an intruder.
If he hadn't testified then his story could not have 'stood up' - the court needed to know 'what was in his mind'.
This is also to do with the onus being on the Defense to 'prove' that he thought what he thought.
This is very badly put, I'm sure someone else can explain it better, but I hope you get the jist.
Also I think they needed to use OP to capitalize on his fame, and his disability, thus they used him as a character witness for himself.
That all went really well for the defense mind:o
"The lawyers can talk, theorize or suggest on the evidence and testimony presented but in the end it comes down to this for me. If I am in a dark room with my lover on Valentines Day and I hear a sound I will ask my lover, "did you hear that?" (since Pistorius, through testimony, now confirms the now deceased was awake). Oscar Pistorius didn't do that. Getting no response I might nudge or reach over to see if my lover is there before grabbing a gun, hobbling on stumps and blasting away.
A physical disability is not an excuse for abandoning common sense. Oscar Pistorius managed to become a successful and wealthy athlete so he has common sense. He's personally challenged the idea of disability by lobbying to be included in the Olympics.
A thorough psychiatric exam proves that he was not suffering from any mental illness that impaired his judgement due to his disability. So that leaves us with this...how is it rational or legal to use deadly force when there was no apparent threat as the supposed intruder was locked in a toilet cubicle and OP had a gun and a route out of his bedroom? He seemed to move around quite effectively on his stumps. He could have told the victim to exit the bedroom and followed. If there had been an intruder who exited the cubicle THEY would have been at a disadvantage, not OP. OP had guns training. Nothing in his guns training ever told him this was the right course.
The fact that he had no idea his victim was in the toilet cubicle is beyond comprehension. The first time a bullet struck her would have rendered a cry from her.
What really stands out for me is the fact that his victim locked herself in the toilet cubicle with her mobile phone. Who goes to the bathroom WITH THEIR MOBILE PHONE at that hour and LOCKS the door? The only person who does that is someone under attack. Getting back to the simple and obvious, Oscar Pistorius' victim was under attack. If the judge finds any other conclusion then it's a travesty of justice."
Here's the article, comment at the bottom:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/negligence-or-murder-a-verdict-in-the-oscar-pistorius-case-will-come-on-sept-11/2014/08/08/915a79dc-1f2c-11e4-82f9-2cd6fa8da5c4_story.html
I may not post, but you load of 'loons' have been amazing!! Decent, interesting, non-confrontational, respectful, insightful, committed and dignified....so what, really, is the problem???
It really is so sad that a bunch of people that are interested in something are suddenly weird and outside of the parameters of normal human conduct. No one here said anyone else should care, no one advised that others should find this particular killing fascinating, no one anywhere has said anything at all that demands the attention of 'the other'.
FMs are simply communicating about something they are interested in.....yup, the world has clearly gone quite mad!
Hey though, they've closed the pernicious and contentious thread....sanity has been restored !!??
Don't hold your breath....
I know what you mean. Also the pesky neighbours hearing the row was an issue anyway. I'm sort of thinking what would OP do now if he could rerun it all from the moments after he shot her ? Wonder how much "what if" he might be doing. Not sure much regret or self-doubt creeps into his thoughts though.
I'm fairly sure he's blaming the Stipps, and may be underlining their names in his little black book of revenge, or sticking pins in a doll or something.
And of course the same with Nel.
And that he doesn't think he's done or said anything wrong at all. It's a conspiricy, I tell ye, UNFAIR, everyone should be on his side, and believe him.
'Infamy, INFAMY, they've all got it in for me' SOB and dream about using guns, and curse a bit.
He's ripe for a good ole startle in my opinion.
I wonder if information about these previous visits to his house will come out after conviction? like previous convictions here.
I bet he wishes he'd shot her as soon as the argument started !! Less distressed bedroom scene, bugger all for the neighbours to hear, probably not have to shoot through a door. Yes .... he was far too tolerant that night, must make a mental note to be more decisive next time.
No one can compel a person to take to the stand but in this case it wouldn't help him to evade it.
The value of a "putative intruder" story, with no other living eyewitnesses, in terms of evidence, is almost none at all, unless he would be prepared to back it up by submitting to questioning and sharing how and why he formed the belief with the court, allowing it to be tested for its truthfulness. It's actually the only way he can "corroborate" his supposed eyewitness version, by allowing an "investigation" into it, in order to make the evidence of a sufficient weight to be accepted.
It would be different if he was acting in genuine self-defence, perhaps a phone call to police just before he was attacked, with witnesses to an assault, and injuries, provoked by the other party. Then he could just sit back and present all that corroborating evidence, to explain fully why he killed someone.
It would be completely different if there had been a genuine break-in and he'd shot RS in the confusion, then the security team had caught the intruders fleeing. Of if RS could testify as well, had she survived.
Then we have independent ways to corroborate his supposed intruder belief.
What reason would OP have for not being willing to talk about what happened to him, provided its true? As the gunman and sole living witness to the occasion of the shots. It wouldn't look good to remain silent - all the inferences would go against him.
So yeah he doesn't have to ... but then again he does. Just no other way to corroborate his claims.
It could have been better to remain silent in the sense that he might have told fewer lies mind you, put on less of a performance and all that kind of stuff. But then if that was his thinking, he should have pled guilty and got the lowest possible sentence on that basis.
What's the point in pleading not guilty and running through a trial if you won't give your (supposed - and unique) eyewitness story?
Case was, therefore, always going to be 90% about OP's testimony and the somewhat mysterious process of assessing his credibility in the telling...;-)
That's the only criticism of himself he's got - he was too damned easy going:o:D
Shudder - that's got a horrible ring of truth.
Does it matter though? Really? It's a thread on a discussion forum not a debate in the House of Lords.
I said I wasn't coming back until Sept 11th....then I got banned for a week and thought "sod that for a game of soldiers" they can put up with me and lump it.
You don't have to defend the thread to anyone. If they don't like it, they can bog off. Right?
SMOKERS (like Rhumba) - what's the matter with you? Start vaping. I haven't had a real **** for almost 2 years, and I never thought I'd stop.
It does doesn't it ! I'm feeling uneasy that the thought entered my head
I DO vape, in bed and when I've run out of ****.:cool:
Seriously, I'm really trying with the vaping thing, just not totally succeeding.
Hi Pixie,
My comment was very firmly tongue-in-cheek. Like you I have been reading for a while and admiring the thread, and have only posted in the last couple of days. I've been stalking the front page for several weeks now waiting to spot the thread drop to the bottom so that I could get my cheeky comment in
meh.
I'm a bit concerned if trials are televised the whole time, will bona fide premeditated killers learn too much about the process and then know how to go about getting away with it?
This "intruder defence" is very accessible for people, potentially.
I think the judge must bear that in mind.
She can't just turn a blind eye to all the concerns with his evidence, it would be a charter for murder.
She probably ought to rule it as "directus" of the intruder AS WELL in order to discourage others from trying this kind of thing.
Closed door + Four bullets + Connecting passage + Shouts and swears + Firing into small space + No actual threat + No credible subjective threat + knows all the gun laws + sober + superior functioning = directus?
Not a bad precedent for Masipa to set, purely from a legal point of view there's a lot of lines that ought not to be blurred here and I think OP crossed all of them.
THEN she can get on with the business of what actually happened, having dealt in no uncertain terms with the charge level ... in terms of looking like a "heat of the moment" shooting giving rise to "elaborate falsehoods" and leading finally into "absurdities" such as pleading 2 defences at the same time?
It might be quite a sobering day in court for OP if she gets going like I imagine she might be about to lol
Proper vaping, and not those sticks that look like cigs from the paper shop? They did not work for me at all.
Proper steam vaping with a tobacco tasting liquid feels amazingly like proper smoking.
It does. And I'm going to stick to it tomorrow, and not hunger for the hot dirty pleasure of a real ****.
Someone asked where this idea came from in prosecution heads - there's your answer ;-)