There is nothing wrong, in itself, in being 'entertained' by this trial.
It is fascinating, it is real life drama, and most of us love a mystery and court dramas can be exciting.
I don't think anyone thinks of it as 'pure' entertainment. I would think ALL of us are acutely aware that a blameless woman was killed in a frightening and horrible way.
I don't know what the point of the whole set of remarks was, except to try and scrabble some 'moral high ground'.
Where there is none.
We are all 'interested' in this - and contributing - obviously even those who 'protest too much', enjoy it.
This ^^
There is no pleasure to be derived from the unlawful killing of an innocent.
At times there is banter and sheer incredulity at some of the things we are hearing, but I'd imagine that everyone is here because they are interested in the trial and it's outcome.
(Although I do wonder if there are a few posters that are here just to sneer at those who have a different opinion to themselves)
Every one of your why's is answered is answered in my very extensive posts that I can't make you read. But it's there.
I don't quite think so, I feel you should not let this go. You spent a lot of time in putting a case forward. Review and put more detail as the evidence should always be challenged by a different view point. Look forward to a more detailed update.
No idea why he wasn't asked to help...he could be 4 foot and a dog end, weighing 6 stone for all we know. ;-)
Apparently we do know he was outside fully dressed and awake when Sanders and the rest arrived. He also speaks pretty good English. Bit of a liability then??
Dad apparently did a bunk?? awhile ago, after all OP said it was his Dad's ammunition in his Safe, bit awkward that.
Carl is probably keeping his head down as people have sussed he may have been giving secret signals to OP whilst on the Stand.
I wonder if it was over the ammo? He was at the bail hearing, put his foot in it over the racist type comments in a paper and has not been seen or heard of since.
Apparently we do know he was outside fully dressed and awake when Sanders and the rest arrived. He also speaks pretty good English. Bit of a liability then??
For whom - State or Defence? As neither have called him I take it that he has nothing to add to the case. I don't see why people have a problem with him not testifying.
Just read the previous few pages to put your comment into perspective....sadly I think you might have a point...In the UK...we would hear all the arguments about an Englishman and castle....obviously the law does't see it that way though....Nevertheless once the case had come to court and the actual evidence was heard I suspect the majority would acknowledge that firing blindly into a tiny toilet cubicle irrespective of who you thought was behind the door was both reckless and illegal......but you are right I suspect OP would have more public sympathy if your scenario were the case.
Edit....but at the end of the day that's not what happened.
If it had been an armed intruder he could and probably would have said that he thoug he heard him cocking his gun (is that even an expression anymore, or is it just from Wild West movies I'm a gun ignoramus) and that would have probably got him off even if the gun wasn't cocked. If OP can shoot through a door so can an armed intruder. Come to think of it, that is what he should have said anyway.
Enough with the movie analogies already! It just makes anything you have to say sound ridiculous .. and all said as if you're standing on a box, wearing a loud shirt and shouting at the top of your voice.
Refreshing honesty!?! This is what you've found in OP's testimony is it? All the 'deeply in love' stuff and the besottedness. Tell us then ... why did Aimee take the handbag? .. why did the phone go awol? .. and why isn't Frank saying anything? What were the jeans doing on the pavement? .. why did OP say everything was fine to security and why did Reeva not use her phone whilst trapped in that toilet? Be refreshingly honest about it .. if you can (but .. like you .. I could write your answers.)
So .. because a next door neighbour says so .. we're supposed to believe that Reeva and OP were engaged. No ring, no Valentines card, no present and .. more worryingly still .. no time yet to tell her he loved her .. but she's his fiance!? Really?
No Valentine's present ... apart from that visit that they were conveniently going to take the next day to the jewellers. Well (and you may or may not know this ... but the advice is free ) women like to be surprised. They're not particularly going to be thrilled if they're taken to a shop where they can point at stuff .. especially when the man is wealthy .. not a lot of effort goes into that does it? Any small thing that he himself has chosen or done for her will count for a whole lot more. I'm sure he read her tweet about Valentine's Day .. all excited about the prospect .. but then again perhaps he was just thinking about himself .. it's a hard habit for him to break. All we've seen is what she did for him but it's interesting that you've built a scenario around the neighbour's comment but nothing at all around Reeva's Whatsapp message.
Her being his fiance is hogwash but If you can find me a link that says that fiances have NEVER killed their partners .. or husbands have NEVER killed their wives or even people have NEVER killed those they love then please provide us with it. Only a few days ago there was an item on a news programme here (linked to the trial) which said that .. in SA .. a woman is killed by her partner once every eight hours .. I suspect guns play a large part in that statistic (and really .. that being the case and given how much OP quotes the crime rates .. Reeva had more reason to shoot him in self defence.)
It's not about his guilt He IS guilty whether you want to face it or not. If he thought there was an intruder he should have secured Reeva's safety and then identified the threat (there aren't any clauses in the gun laws .. there's not an 'if you're too much of a wuss then we'll overlook it') .. she would be alive today if he'd done either. He broke those laws and killed a defenceless girl in the process and for that he should pay.
You have a go at us .. we're in the wrong and deluded etc but our views are hardly controversial. Provide us with some links from legal experts out there that are thinking along the same lines as you? Plenty of links get put up here every day which support the prosecution's version. Over 90% of people polled here (in UK) think he's guilty .. some of them obviously have thought that from day one and probably made their minds up straight away but .. though you try .. you can't accuse us of not knowing or listening to every detail of the trial and our deductions are every bit as valid as yours. We're not alone either in thinking that Roux has made a pig's ear out of presenting the case for the defence .. it's been a shambles and embarrassing. Some of that (if not all of it) is down to OP being refreshingly honest on the stand and changing his version so that it fits nobody elses.
Still catching up on the posts from this afternoon, but great response Daizie, well said!
The tone of your post was clearly that if there actually had been a burglar, it would somehow be justifiable enough....in the minds of the SA public, at least.....to stop him being brought to trial.
I highly doubt that.
Burglars have a right to life too. Particularly if they are not physically threatening you in the slightest, and have, in fact, locked themselves in the bog to hide from you.
A SOUTH African sports star thinks he hears a thief on his property. He takes out a gun and shoots.
No, it isn't double amputee Oscar Pistorius but former Springbok rugby player Rudi 'Vleis' Visagie.
In what may be a precedent for the Pistorius case, Visagie was exonerated in 2004 of his daughter's murder after he shot and killed her thinking she was a burglar.
Visagie had woken at dawn to the sound of his daughter's car being driven off their property in northeast South Africa.
However, it was not a thief but his daughter Merle who was off to visit her boyfriend Brand Pretorius for his birthday.
She was shot through the neck by her father and died on the way to hospital.
The court found that justice would not be served by trying Visagie for his daughter's death, saying the rugby player had suffered enough.
"He has been through traumatic circumstances, and his pain would only have been aggravated by his part in her death," National Prosecuting Authority spokesman said at the time.. "We feel he has learned a hard lesson and the courts cannot achieve more than that.”
Acting High Court Judge Kessie Naidu SC said the law in South Africa allows people to defend themselves if they feel their life is in danger from an intruder.
( Rudi Visagie shot out of his bedroom window and killed his daughter in her own car because he thought she was a thief stealing the car)
Tell me you're joking... like a little cough here and there ;-)
No ... some people have comment earlier here on this, its a case of watching OP's testimony and cross examination by Nel to take a view on. Some one might have a link or a time to watch a video feed.
Replace it at once sandy - a dishwasher is one of life's essentials.
I know, i'm in mourning at the loss of it
Got down to the last clean mug for a cup of tea ,
couldn't hide my laziness any longer
and had to just tackle the lot - it looked like a Student's digs,,,,,,,,,:o:blush::D Exhausting.
A SOUTH African sports star thinks he hears a thief on his property. He takes out a gun and shoots.
No, it isn't double amputee Oscar Pistorius but former Springbok rugby player Rudi 'Vleis' Visagie.
In what may be a precedent for the Pistorius case, Visagie was exonerated in 2004 of his daughter's murder after he shot and killed her thinking she was a burglar.
Visagie had woken at dawn to the sound of his daughter's car being driven off their property in northeast South Africa.
However, it was not a thief but his daughter Merle who was off to visit her boyfriend Brand Pretorius for his birthday.
She was shot through the neck by her father and died on the way to hospital.
The court found that justice would not be served by trying Visagie for his daughter's death, saying the rugby player had suffered enough.
"He has been through traumatic circumstances, and his pain would only have been aggravated by his part in her death," National Prosecuting Authority spokesman said at the time.. "We feel he has learned a hard lesson and the courts cannot achieve more than that.”
Acting High Court Judge Kessie Naidu SC said the law in South Africa allows people to defend themselves if they feel their life is in danger from an intruder.
( Rudi Visagie shot out of his bedroom window and killed his daughter in her own car because he thought she was a thief stealing the car)
Very, Very, different scenario. The toilet with its occupant was not speeding away from the Bathroom and it wasn't one bullet, but 4 fired at very close range into a tiny, tiny, compartment with devastating accuracy. If Rudi had cornered the car or it was locked in the garage and without any warning shot etc blasted away with Black Tallon Bullets think he may have ended up in Court.
A SOUTH African sports star thinks he hears a thief on his property. He takes out a gun and shoots.
No, it isn't double amputee Oscar Pistorius but former Springbok rugby player Rudi 'Vleis' Visagie.
In what may be a precedent for the Pistorius case, Visagie was exonerated in 2004 of his daughter's murder after he shot and killed her thinking she was a burglar.
Visagie had woken at dawn to the sound of his daughter's car being driven off their property in northeast South Africa.
However, it was not a thief but his daughter Merle who was off to visit her boyfriend Brand Pretorius for his birthday.
She was shot through the neck by her father and died on the way to hospital.
The court found that justice would not be served by trying Visagie for his daughter's death, saying the rugby player had suffered enough.
"He has been through traumatic circumstances, and his pain would only have been aggravated by his part in her death," National Prosecuting Authority spokesman said at the time.. "We feel he has learned a hard lesson and the courts cannot achieve more than that.”
Acting High Court Judge Kessie Naidu SC said the law in South Africa allows people to defend themselves if they feel their life is in danger from an intruder.
( Rudi Visagie shot out of his bedroom window and killed his daughter in her own car because he thought she was a thief stealing the car)
The parents were both interviewed during a documentary about this trial, and it was their DAUGHTER - different circumstances and relationship completely. The father SAW someone driving off the driveway , OP couldn't see his target, you see.........it's that case....... that I think OP is relying on, he knows, or would have been told, all the details and that's why he has that Social Worker/Probation Officer saying things like he misses Reeva, it's all about Reeva, that's why he's told her, he is no idiot, neither are those around him, he knows the score - but he didn't admit to killing Reeva,
- so he falls far short to be compared to that grieving father and his family. And the father said the tragedy was that he only fired ONE bullet and it his her, so so sad, they were such lovely people too.
OP and Reeva could have split up a week later and she'd not have affected his life forever, and in this case , there was a build up to him killing her, she suffered, he made a choice to pull that trigger at her, and killed her. That case involving the daughter won't set a precedent, and neither will this case, there's so much else involved in this trial, no comparison,.
A SOUTH African sports star thinks he hears a thief on his property. He takes out a gun and shoots.
No, it isn't double amputee Oscar Pistorius but former Springbok rugby player Rudi 'Vleis' Visagie.
In what may be a precedent for the Pistorius case, Visagie was exonerated in 2004 of his daughter's murder after he shot and killed her thinking she was a burglar.
Visagie had woken at dawn to the sound of his daughter's car being driven off their property in northeast South Africa.
However, it was not a thief but his daughter Merle who was off to visit her boyfriend Brand Pretorius for his birthday.
She was shot through the neck by her father and died on the way to hospital.
The court found that justice would not be served by trying Visagie for his daughter's death, saying the rugby player had suffered enough.
"He has been through traumatic circumstances, and his pain would only have been aggravated by his part in her death," National Prosecuting Authority spokesman said at the time.. "We feel he has learned a hard lesson and the courts cannot achieve more than that.”
Acting High Court Judge Kessie Naidu SC said the law in South Africa allows people to defend themselves if they feel their life is in danger from an intruder.
( Rudi Visagie shot out of his bedroom window and killed his daughter in her own car because he thought she was a thief stealing the car)
I was just thinking of this case earlier today.
I think this guy was morally wrong too - when did it become okay to kill someone even if they are stealing from you? What a terribly dangerous precedent.
astonishing thought that the court could decide OP has been through enough, and that he would have been justified in killing an intruder, but I'm thinking the type of ammunition, the "intruder" locked in a toilet shot without warning, [edit: the four shots] and OP's other firearms charges will tip the balance.
But then, I was astonished he was allowed out on bail.
For whom - State or Defence? As neither have called him I take it that he has nothing to add to the case. I don't see why people have a problem with him not testifying.
How could he have slept through all that prolonged racket, neighbours up and down the estate heard why not him? Is he deaf apparently not as that has not come out. Anyway why was he already dressed and outside when Sanders etc. arrived some thing must have got him up??. He can choose not to talk or ?pretend he heard / saw nothing? but come on its stretches incredulity to the extreme. It seems that in SA you can back out of going on the Stand, doubt you would get away with it here, even if you deny hearing anything when on the Stand, you would still be providing information in background. Poor Reeva, when she was calling help, help, help, was she thinking good old Frank would come to the rescue?
A SOUTH African sports star thinks he hears a thief on his property. He takes out a gun and shoots.
No, it isn't double amputee Oscar Pistorius but former Springbok rugby player Rudi 'Vleis' Visagie.
In what may be a precedent for the Pistorius case, Visagie was exonerated in 2004 of his daughter's murder after he shot and killed her thinking she was a burglar.
Visagie had woken at dawn to the sound of his daughter's car being driven off their property in northeast South Africa.
However, it was not a thief but his daughter Merle who was off to visit her boyfriend Brand Pretorius for his birthday.
She was shot through the neck by her father and died on the way to hospital.
The court found that justice would not be served by trying Visagie for his daughter's death, saying the rugby player had suffered enough.
"He has been through traumatic circumstances, and his pain would only have been aggravated by his part in her death," National Prosecuting Authority spokesman said at the time.. "We feel he has learned a hard lesson and the courts cannot achieve more than that.”
Acting High Court Judge Kessie Naidu SC said the law in South Africa allows people to defend themselves if they feel their life is in danger from an intruder.
( Rudi Visagie shot out of his bedroom window and killed his daughter in her own car because he thought she was a thief stealing the car)
Blimey. How many more times is someone going to link to this?
Do some Googling and you can find a better example - a man who shoots his pregnant wife as she's coming out of the toilet in the middle of the night. Thinks she's an intruder. Get's a suspended sentence, I believe.
I could spend time pointing out the massive differences between both these cases and OP's, but it's been done before and I can't be arsed.
There is no pleasure to be derived from the unlawful killing of an innocent.
At times there is banter and sheer incredulity at some of the things we are hearing, but I'd imagine that everyone is here because they are interested in the trial and it's outcome.
(Although I do wonder if there are a few posters that are here just to sneer at those who have a different opinion to themselves)
you yourself made some choice comments earlier this afternoon about other posters.. and the "majority" I remember .....
I was just thinking of this case earlier today.earlier today.
I think this guy was morally wrong too - when did it become okay to kill someone even if they are stealing from you? What a terribly dangerous precedent.
astonishing thought that the court could decide OP has been through enough, and that he would have been justified in killing an intruder, but I'm thinking the type of ammunition, the "intruder" locked in a toilet shot without warning and OP's other firearms charges will tip the balance.
But then, I was astonished he was allowed out on bail.
It doesn't matter if it was an Intruder or Reeva, you can't fired shots at someone where you are NOT in any immediate danger or your life is being threatened - and only when using lethal force when there is no other option open to you.
Comments
This ^^
There is no pleasure to be derived from the unlawful killing of an innocent.
At times there is banter and sheer incredulity at some of the things we are hearing, but I'd imagine that everyone is here because they are interested in the trial and it's outcome.
(Although I do wonder if there are a few posters that are here just to sneer at those who have a different opinion to themselves)
Agree, very good post, thank you.
I don't quite think so, I feel you should not let this go. You spent a lot of time in putting a case forward. Review and put more detail as the evidence should always be challenged by a different view point. Look forward to a more detailed update.
Dad apparently did a bunk?? awhile ago, after all OP said it was his Dad's ammunition in his Safe, bit awkward that.
Carl is probably keeping his head down as people have sussed he may have been giving secret signals to OP whilst on the Stand.
Tell me you're joking... like a little cough here and there ;-)
Apparently we do know he was outside fully dressed and awake when Sanders and the rest arrived. He also speaks pretty good English. Bit of a liability then??
Try here lovelove
http://www.youtube.com/user/sabcdigitalnews
Scroll down to the OP bit.:)
I wonder if it was over the ammo? He was at the bail hearing, put his foot in it over the racist type comments in a paper and has not been seen or heard of since.
Thank you Rhum but I was being shockingly stupid, I kept typing 7th may on YouTube not 8! No wonder nothing showed up lol
For whom - State or Defence? As neither have called him I take it that he has nothing to add to the case. I don't see why people have a problem with him not testifying.
Still catching up on the posts from this afternoon, but great response Daizie, well said!
A SOUTH African sports star thinks he hears a thief on his property. He takes out a gun and shoots.
No, it isn't double amputee Oscar Pistorius but former Springbok rugby player Rudi 'Vleis' Visagie.
In what may be a precedent for the Pistorius case, Visagie was exonerated in 2004 of his daughter's murder after he shot and killed her thinking she was a burglar.
Visagie had woken at dawn to the sound of his daughter's car being driven off their property in northeast South Africa.
However, it was not a thief but his daughter Merle who was off to visit her boyfriend Brand Pretorius for his birthday.
She was shot through the neck by her father and died on the way to hospital.
The court found that justice would not be served by trying Visagie for his daughter's death, saying the rugby player had suffered enough.
"He has been through traumatic circumstances, and his pain would only have been aggravated by his part in her death," National Prosecuting Authority spokesman said at the time.. "We feel he has learned a hard lesson and the courts cannot achieve more than that.”
Acting High Court Judge Kessie Naidu SC said the law in South Africa allows people to defend themselves if they feel their life is in danger from an intruder.
( Rudi Visagie shot out of his bedroom window and killed his daughter in her own car because he thought she was a thief stealing the car)
No ... some people have comment earlier here on this, its a case of watching OP's testimony and cross examination by Nel to take a view on. Some one might have a link or a time to watch a video feed.
I know, i'm in mourning at the loss of it
Got down to the last clean mug for a cup of tea ,
couldn't hide my laziness any longer
and had to just tackle the lot - it looked like a Student's digs,,,,,,,,,:o:blush::D Exhausting.
Very, Very, different scenario. The toilet with its occupant was not speeding away from the Bathroom and it wasn't one bullet, but 4 fired at very close range into a tiny, tiny, compartment with devastating accuracy. If Rudi had cornered the car or it was locked in the garage and without any warning shot etc blasted away with Black Tallon Bullets think he may have ended up in Court.
The parents were both interviewed during a documentary about this trial, and it was their DAUGHTER - different circumstances and relationship completely. The father SAW someone driving off the driveway , OP couldn't see his target, you see.........it's that case....... that I think OP is relying on, he knows, or would have been told, all the details and that's why he has that Social Worker/Probation Officer saying things like he misses Reeva, it's all about Reeva, that's why he's told her, he is no idiot, neither are those around him, he knows the score - but he didn't admit to killing Reeva,
- so he falls far short to be compared to that grieving father and his family. And the father said the tragedy was that he only fired ONE bullet and it his her, so so sad, they were such lovely people too.
OP and Reeva could have split up a week later and she'd not have affected his life forever, and in this case , there was a build up to him killing her, she suffered, he made a choice to pull that trigger at her, and killed her. That case involving the daughter won't set a precedent, and neither will this case, there's so much else involved in this trial, no comparison,.
I was just thinking of this case earlier today.
I think this guy was morally wrong too - when did it become okay to kill someone even if they are stealing from you? What a terribly dangerous precedent.
astonishing thought that the court could decide OP has been through enough, and that he would have been justified in killing an intruder, but I'm thinking the type of ammunition, the "intruder" locked in a toilet shot without warning, [edit: the four shots] and OP's other firearms charges will tip the balance.
But then, I was astonished he was allowed out on bail.
How could he have slept through all that prolonged racket, neighbours up and down the estate heard why not him? Is he deaf apparently not as that has not come out. Anyway why was he already dressed and outside when Sanders etc. arrived some thing must have got him up??. He can choose not to talk or ?pretend he heard / saw nothing? but come on its stretches incredulity to the extreme. It seems that in SA you can back out of going on the Stand, doubt you would get away with it here, even if you deny hearing anything when on the Stand, you would still be providing information in background. Poor Reeva, when she was calling help, help, help, was she thinking good old Frank would come to the rescue?
Blimey. How many more times is someone going to link to this?
Do some Googling and you can find a better example - a man who shoots his pregnant wife as she's coming out of the toilet in the middle of the night. Thinks she's an intruder. Get's a suspended sentence, I believe.
I could spend time pointing out the massive differences between both these cases and OP's, but it's been done before and I can't be arsed.
you yourself made some choice comments earlier this afternoon about other posters.. and the "majority" I remember .....
It doesn't matter if it was an Intruder or Reeva, you can't fired shots at someone where you are NOT in any immediate danger or your life is being threatened - and only when using lethal force when there is no other option open to you.