Not disputing they did but I find it very odd that paramedics would advice to move a gunshot victim who is dieing into a car and drive to the hospital .
I am guessing we will .I just find it strange as the main thing is to stem bleeding and they were on their way anyway as they turned up soon .So why tell him to move a bleeding victim into a car ? Odd that .
I am guessing we will .I just find it strange as the main thing is to stem bleeding and they were on their way anyway as they turned up soon .So why tell him to move a bleeding victim into a car ? Odd that .
The cynic in me thinks the crime scene is not now 100% (by moving her).
Well the fact they heard shouting and commotion in the early hours and then a woman was shot dead, it stands to reason it was the same incident.
Many people have verified screaming in other cases before after a murder. Its not usually suggested it doesn't tie in
Yes and the jury would apply that thinking. But the point was correct.
Nair is in a very difficult position. He has SA to appease and the rest of the world looking down his throat. And the facts of the case are not fully presented to him, becuse it is the bail hearing.
Nair is in a very difficult position. He has SA to appease and the rest of the world looking down his throat. And the facts of the case are not fully presented to him, becuse it is the bail hearing.
If I was him I'd refuse bail because if OP does flee it really won't look good.
if the shots were angled downwards, would that not contradict his own evidence that he didn't have his legs on? It was also such a small space, he must have known he was going to hit someone.
Having his legs on would only affect the height of the gun, not the angle of the gun.
Yes, it was a small space, but its entirely possible that shots angled downwards were not shots to kill.
2m ago
Nair asks how long it was between the shooting and Pistorius telling anyone he thought there was a burglar.
Roux points out that Nel earlier described Pistorius as "firing blindly" – blindly, not deliberately, he says.
Talking about Nel's points regarding the placing of the mobile phones and gun and why the house door was unlocked, Roux says it makes sense that he would go to the toilet, try the door, and drop the gun there. "That's where I would expect it to be." It only makes sense that he put the gun down while trying to open the toilet door, he says.
He wouldn't have put the gun down when opening the door. OP says he thought a burglar was behind the door. He'd have wanted to be armed. It doesn't add up to me.
Roux mocks Nel's argument that Pistorius is a flight risk; every time he goes through airport security it causes a commotion, he says. It is impossible for this man to disappear. His legs need constant maintanence and he needs medical attention for his stumps, he says.
"Roux mocks Nel's argument that Pistorius is a flight risk; every time he goes through airport security it causes a commotion, he says. It is impossible for this man to disappear. His legs need constant maintanence and he needs medical attention for his stumps, he says."
***
I'm sure there's doctors outside of SA who are just as competent.
Roux mocks Nel's argument that Pistorius is a flight risk; every time he goes through airport security it causes a commotion, he says. It is impossible for this man to disappear. His legs need constant maintanence and he needs medical attention for his stumps, he says.
He could get a boat!
Lol my thoughts. We have illegal immigrants.... and OP has the funds
The term premeditated causes much confusion, and leads people to think of planning. It is not actually in the definition of murder here, but is often used when discussing it.
Murder is unlawfully killing, with the intention of doing so, or causing grievous bodily harm.
The term intent often leads to the term premeditated.
Firing a gun at someone in temper is murder, even if the act is spontaneous.
Sure - but I'm trying to get the differentiation between murder and premeditated murder.
I would accept that he is guilty of murder of some legal kind.
But if it was a spontaneous shooting in the midst of a violent argument, where he almost certainly wasn't thinking rationally about what he was doing.... I don't see that as being premeditated murder.
Having his legs on would only affect the height of the gun, not the angle of the gun.
Yes, it was a small space, but its entirely possible that shots angled downwards were not shots to kill.
Shooting blindly through a door is not a shot not to kill , its a shot that you have no clue if it will kill or not .If you shoot not to kill you aim at the ceiling once and shout out that the next one will be lower . Four blasts through a door in a tiny space can hardly be classed as avoiding a kill
possibly not but if she ran to hide in the bathroom and he followed her and put four shots through the door, then he thought about it. He might not have been in his right mind, but it takes more than a split second to go from one room to another.
So? Just because it would have taken more than a split second, its not as though in that split second, time froze, he thought rationally about what he was doing, made a conscious and rational thought to try to kill her, time restarted and he killed her, having just rationally decided to do so.
Roux mocks Nel's argument that Pistorius is a flight risk; every time he goes through airport security it causes a commotion, he says. It is impossible for this man to disappear. His legs need constant maintanence and he needs medical attention for his stumps, he says.
He could get a boat!
If you live in James Bond world yes. Otherwise the thought of him sailing away to a welcoming country in a fishing boat fairly impractical. And then there's Somalian pirates.
Firing four times into an enclosed space where you cant see the person on the other side shows a recklessness so great that it would be murder in most places.
I'm not disputing that much.
But there remain question marks over:
a. whether he shot to kill.
b. whether or not he knew he was shooting at Reeva.
If you live in James Bond world yes. Otherwise the thought of him sailing away to a welcoming country in a fishing boat fairly impractical. And then there's Somalian pirates.
It's possible though don't you think? He has the resources to flee and hide
Comments
Extremely odd.
Yes! Like most of this case!
The cynic in me thinks the crime scene is not now 100% (by moving her).
Yes and the jury would apply that thinking. But the point was correct.
Yes , a whole list of oddities and bizzarness .
If I was him I'd refuse bail because if OP does flee it really won't look good.
Having his legs on would only affect the height of the gun, not the angle of the gun.
Yes, it was a small space, but its entirely possible that shots angled downwards were not shots to kill.
Nair asks how long it was between the shooting and Pistorius telling anyone he thought there was a burglar.
Roux points out that Nel earlier described Pistorius as "firing blindly" – blindly, not deliberately, he says.
Talking about Nel's points regarding the placing of the mobile phones and gun and why the house door was unlocked, Roux says it makes sense that he would go to the toilet, try the door, and drop the gun there. "That's where I would expect it to be." It only makes sense that he put the gun down while trying to open the toilet door, he says.
He wouldn't have put the gun down when opening the door. OP says he thought a burglar was behind the door. He'd have wanted to be armed. It doesn't add up to me.
He could get a boat!
***
I'm sure there's doctors outside of SA who are just as competent.
Lol my thoughts. We have illegal immigrants.... and OP has the funds
Sure - but I'm trying to get the differentiation between murder and premeditated murder.
I would accept that he is guilty of murder of some legal kind.
But if it was a spontaneous shooting in the midst of a violent argument, where he almost certainly wasn't thinking rationally about what he was doing.... I don't see that as being premeditated murder.
Shooting blindly through a door is not a shot not to kill , its a shot that you have no clue if it will kill or not .If you shoot not to kill you aim at the ceiling once and shout out that the next one will be lower . Four blasts through a door in a tiny space can hardly be classed as avoiding a kill
So? Just because it would have taken more than a split second, its not as though in that split second, time froze, he thought rationally about what he was doing, made a conscious and rational thought to try to kill her, time restarted and he killed her, having just rationally decided to do so.
If you live in James Bond world yes. Otherwise the thought of him sailing away to a welcoming country in a fishing boat fairly impractical. And then there's Somalian pirates.
I'm not disputing that much.
But there remain question marks over:
a. whether he shot to kill.
b. whether or not he knew he was shooting at Reeva.
Nel says his decision is an "unenviable one". Why I wonder. Just because the defendant is famous?
Yes, my thoughts too .
It's possible though don't you think? He has the resources to flee and hide