Hopefully it will send out the message that the judge will simply deal with what she believes happened, rather than the wish fulfilment of an internet forum's users.
That you find it acceptable to fire 4 bullets through a locked door and kill someone when there is no threat says rather more about you than it does about those on here who thinks that perhaps justice for the unlawful killing of Reeva and have not seen that being done.
It doesn't matter what you would do. This has been a recurring problem with how people have assessed the evidence. Too often they've said 'Oh that can't be true as I'd never do that'. Well it really doesn't matter. The only question was "Was it possible that Pistorius could've done that".
Actually, he needed to have acted in a reasonable manner. Many people on this forum think he acted very unreasonably.
In fact, it is obvious it was an unreasonable reaction - so unreasonable he was sent for psychiatric evaluation after his defense team scrambled to explain why he acted so bizarrely that night.
Yet Masipa has argued it was reasonable for him to grab a gun and scream for several minutes before firing 4 times through a bathroom door because he heard something like a window opening
There is no way he would be granted a licence to own a gun again.
He's already stated that he never wants to touch one again.
If nothing else let's hope that this whole tragic case has some effect on the gun culture in SA and even worldwide.
Why not start with a worldwide ban on all weapon toys and replica guns?
Just like he didn't have the licence to have the ammo in his house, but did? IMO he isn't a man who cares for the law too much. But, a futile argument for us to have as based on nothing other than differing opinions. Only time will tell!!
And are you saying that a normal reaction to have is to reach for a loaded gun, shout at a locked closed door, and then fire 4 killer bullets into it when you do not get a reply?
Doe that sound more like a reasonable response to the scenario?
For OP and what I know of him, yes. He's a bloody idiot. But not a murderer.
Someone I know has been trained in firearms. The 1st rule they learn is don't take the safety off if you don't intend to kill someone.
Firing 4 rounds of hollow tips through a door randomly at close range will kill someone. he knew this would be the outcome of firing his weapon. Therefore he intended to kill whoever was behind the door.
No if you thought someone was there a moment ago and were awake you would be aware if them getting up.
If you were still in bed yes but if you were out of bed, back turned, bringing in a fan from a balcony and closing some curtains it's possible you may not hear them. Especially if they're light on their feet and the bedroom is small. She was in the corridor a second after getting out of bed.
That would be because there is a huge difference between eye witness evidence and someone hearing something half asleep from a distance.
Example... if I wake up at 4am in the morning and hear what I believe to be a row outside and go back to bed.. that's not as good as if I had gone downstairs at 4.15am and seen with my own eyes two people rowing in the street. You can see the difference between the two.
Stipp's eye witness account of the emotional state of Oscar Pistorius whilst stood next to him was always going to be much better evidence than Stipp hearing what he believed to be gun shots from a distance.. having just woken up. The judge can only deal with EVIDENCE. And when some people heard more than four "shots" that night it was clear the distance ear witnesses were always going to need to be treated with caution.. because some of them were plain wrong in what they claim they heard that night.
But Stipp seeing with his own EYES what Oscar was doing that night was never going to be disputed.. it's the best evidence you an get.
Especially when there are other witnesses including the police to back up what Stipp saw.
Seriously,some people really come up with mind boggling logic when they don't get their way.
Sorry I was wrong, Eliza. It seems that if two people are alone in a house and one kills the other through a closed door, murder cannot be proven.
Yes, Imogen (and I maintain that Sam's book might never see the light of day, seeing his family is prone to suing, etc. and now might, more than ever).
I'm sort of in shock - and also sort of bewildered that I'm being treated like a poor loser here by some gloating, whereas it seems to me that a lot of testimony / evidence that seemed relevant was chucked out the window, just like that.
It's funny hearing the Sky bloke trying to make any of this predictable farce sound dramatic. 'We still have to hear about the CH charge yet'
As if there's any question of what the outcome of that will be, either!
That would be because there is a huge difference between eye witness evidence and someone hearing something half asleep from a distance.
Example... if I wake up at 4am in the morning and hear what I believe to be a row outside and go back to bed.. that's not as good as if I had gone downstairs at 4.15am and seen with my own eyes two people rowing in the street. You can see the difference between the two.
Stipp's eye witness account of the emotional state of Oscar Pistorius whilst stood next to him was always going to be much better evidence than Stipp hearing what he believed to be gun shots from a distance.. having just woken up. The judge can only deal with EVIDENCE. And when some people heard more than four "shots" that night it was clear the distance ear witnesses were always going to need to be treated with caution.. because some of them were plain wrong in what they claim they heard that night.
But Stipp seeing with his own EYES what Oscar was doing that night was never going to be disputed.. it's the best evidence you an get.
Stipp seeing the bathroom light was for a long time, for me, solid evidence that OP's story was a crock. Then Mr Mike appeared.......
After that the rest fell away and it was just would he be acquitted on the murder or would it be culpable homicide which would reflect his reckless nature.
James Grant @CriminalLawZA 31s
State can appeal legal errors. Arguably a legal error to restrict Dolus Eventualis to Reeva when it's irrelevant who was behind the door.
Comments
That you find it acceptable to fire 4 bullets through a locked door and kill someone when there is no threat says rather more about you than it does about those on here who thinks that perhaps justice for the unlawful killing of Reeva and have not seen that being done.
Actually, he needed to have acted in a reasonable manner. Many people on this forum think he acted very unreasonably.
In fact, it is obvious it was an unreasonable reaction - so unreasonable he was sent for psychiatric evaluation after his defense team scrambled to explain why he acted so bizarrely that night.
Yet Masipa has argued it was reasonable for him to grab a gun and scream for several minutes before firing 4 times through a bathroom door because he heard something like a window opening
No if you thought someone was there a moment ago and were awake you would be aware if them getting up.
Waiting for Frank to tell/sell the true story ...
Just like he didn't have the licence to have the ammo in his house, but did? IMO he isn't a man who cares for the law too much. But, a futile argument for us to have as based on nothing other than differing opinions. Only time will tell!!
For OP and what I know of him, yes. He's a bloody idiot. But not a murderer.
It's just been break after break, after break........
She has ignored so many vital facts.
and "a is [a bit of a] free for all", lol
Yes she did she dismisses most of it, and even the evidence she didn't dismiss, she ignored largely. a disgrace.
A hot headed possessive and jealous idiot yes.
Why? he still killed someone.
Someone I know has been trained in firearms. The 1st rule they learn is don't take the safety off if you don't intend to kill someone.
Firing 4 rounds of hollow tips through a door randomly at close range will kill someone. he knew this would be the outcome of firing his weapon. Therefore he intended to kill whoever was behind the door.
If you were still in bed yes but if you were out of bed, back turned, bringing in a fan from a balcony and closing some curtains it's possible you may not hear them. Especially if they're light on their feet and the bedroom is small. She was in the corridor a second after getting out of bed.
Especially when there are other witnesses including the police to back up what Stipp saw.
Seriously,some people really come up with mind boggling logic when they don't get their way.
And 4 shots in one direction at the door. That is clear motive to kill.
Yes, Imogen (and I maintain that Sam's book might never see the light of day, seeing his family is prone to suing, etc. and now might, more than ever).
I'm sort of in shock - and also sort of bewildered that I'm being treated like a poor loser here by some gloating, whereas it seems to me that a lot of testimony / evidence that seemed relevant was chucked out the window, just like that.
As if there's any question of what the outcome of that will be, either!
I just can't wrap my head around Judge Masipa saying this one.
It was four shots, with dum dum bullets, into an enclosed space. What am I missing? How can the judge seriously say that?
Stipp seeing the bathroom light was for a long time, for me, solid evidence that OP's story was a crock. Then Mr Mike appeared.......
After that the rest fell away and it was just would he be acquitted on the murder or would it be culpable homicide which would reflect his reckless nature.
So IQ is now a defense when a person kills someone?
State can appeal legal errors. Arguably a legal error to restrict Dolus Eventualis to Reeva when it's irrelevant who was behind the door.
Yep and late back as usual.
If it makes it easier to understand imagine OP had a machine gun instead and what would have resulted.