I think we discussed this last night. The fact that you seldom post an original thought and tend to hang on to the shirt tails of other posters. It is perhaps a coincidence that they were much more pro Pistorius. No matter. You continued to do it today. It's not actually a competition with winners and losers.
Do you even read my posts? Apparently not. Look back over today and see my original thoughts. For the second time I put my neck on the line (well, my house). All by myself, aren't i brave.
I could not give a flying flick what the majority think. I have a mind of my own and i use it. Curiously, some posters seem to find that threatening and get rather defensive. Its odd but its the way these sort of topics seem to go. Anyone prepared to challenge the majority seems to come in for a lot of stick
why do this symbol after someone's post, They gave their opinion - so comment on why you disagree or don't understand what they've written - your sarcasm is childish, make your point or don't answer at all.
I find the videos pretty good on that site, have you watched the one where the 3 (defence?) lawyers chat away, pretty good imho. I can dig out a link if you like.
I like to listen to other's perspectives (particularly those that are familiar with SA law) as it does make me see things in a different light at times - and there's no hysterics
ETA: here's the link just in case you want to watch
Please Francie-I'd e really interested in seeing it. I'm trying hard to retain objectivity and not form any concrete opinion about his guilt until all the evidence is in.... the surprising thing is that so many of the legal experts infer (obviously don't state) that they think his testimony is so full of contradictions and so unreliable that he is guilty of murder....understandably difficult not to be swayed given their knowledge and experience!
The one thing to me that is in no doubt is that he is guilty of murder. Whether you believe that he was firing at Reeva or you believe that he was firing at a supposed intruder, either way he knowingly shot four times at someone in an enclosed space with lethal bullets, giving them no chance to escape. He was not threatened by anyone and has no reasonable justification for taking this action other than an over active imagination, which isn't an acceptable excuse for killing someone. He did not warn whoever was in the toilet that he was armed nor did he choose any course of reasonable action to find out who was in there or alternatively to escape the threat. If he had tried to warn whoever he imagined was there (and she wasn't his intended target) then he would have known it was Reeva.
What really concerns me here if the verdict is not guilty, other than a murderer walking away scott free which would already be bad enough, is the wider implications of such a verdict. It would send out a message of shoot first, think later to other gun wielding individuals in SA and the world over.
We are only hearing about this case because of it's celebrity status, but if after all this OP is still not found guilty then why should any other individual in a similar situation be found guilty? What would stop them from citing the OP case as part as their defence and winning on that basis? Basically a not guilty verdict would mean if you can claim you thought it might be someone else that you shot and killed then you could literally get away with murder.
I don't think that is right any way you choose to look at it.
Neither do I, if you are incapable of 'thinking' than you should not be able to carry a firearm legally.
I think one of the biggest slip-ups OP made, was while Nel was asking him why he didn't check if Reeva had escaped through the bedroom door and OP said why would she go through the bedroom door, the incident happened in the bathroom.
Oh did he really say that?
Of course he may have just been really confused .... but I agree, that is a big slip!
The one thing to me that is in no doubt is that he is guilty of murder. Whether you believe that he was firing at Reeva or you believe that he was firing at a supposed intruder, either way he knowingly shot four times at someone in an enclosed space with lethal bullets, giving them no chance to escape. He was not threatened by anyone and has no reasonable justification for taking this action other than an over active imagination, which isn't an acceptable excuse for killing someone. He did not warn whoever was in the toilet that he was armed nor did he choose any course of reasonable action to find out who was in there or alternatively to escape the threat. If he had tried to warn whoever he imagined was there (and she wasn't his intended target) then he would have known it was Reeva.
What really concerns me here if the verdict is not guilty, other than a murderer walking away scott free which would already be bad enough, is the wider implications of such a verdict. It would send out a message of shoot first, think later to other gun wielding individuals in SA and the world over.
We are only hearing about this case because of it's celebrity status, but if after all this OP is still not found guilty then why should any other individual in a similar situation be found guilty? What would stop them from citing the OP case as part as their defence and winning on that basis? Basically a not guilty verdict would mean if you can claim you thought it might be someone else that you shot and killed then you could literally get away with murder.
I don't think that is right any way you choose to look at it.
Amen to this. OP MUST go to jail for a very long time. One simply cannot be so lackadaisical when holding a firearm and this message needs to ring out across the world, and not just SA.
The bloke is a mentalist of the highest order.
I know one thing for sure and that is OP will struggle from now on to get a window cleaner!
the screams, the arguments between two people, two raised voices, man and woman heard by neighbours
Reeva was awake before the shots - so his Story is impossible.
Do you even read my posts? Apparently not. Look back over today and see my original thoughts. For the second time I put my neck on the line (well, my house). All by myself, aren't i brave.
I could not give a flying flick what the majority think. I have a mind of my own and i use it. Curiously, some posters seem to find that threatening and get rather defensive. Its odd but its the way these sort of topics seem to go. Anyone prepared to challenge the majority seems to come in for a lot of stick
I can't be bothered to review your day's posts. Nothing I have read from you has been sensible, intelligent or even relevant, is today any different?
Do you even read my posts? Apparently not. Look back over today and see my original thoughts. For the second time I put my neck on the line (well, my house). All by myself, aren't i brave.
I could not give a flying flick what the majority think. I have a mind of my own and i use it. Curiously, some posters seem to find that threatening and get rather defensive. Its odd but its the way these sort of topics seem to go. Anyone prepared to challenge the majority seems to come in for a lot of stick
That I agree with. And I did indeed see you put your house on the line. I retract what I said.. I'm sorry.
I walk alone in here. I watch the evidence and post my opinions.
I get stick all the time. Do I care? Not in the slightest . It's not a D S popularity contest.
Do you even read my posts? Apparently not. Look back over today and see my original thoughts. For the second time I put my neck on the line (well, my house). All by myself, aren't i brave.
I could not give a flying flick what the majority think. I have a mind of my own and i use it. Curiously, some posters seem to find that threatening and get rather defensive. Its odd but its the way these sort of topics seem to go. Anyone prepared to challenge the majority seems to come in for a lot of stick
perhaps you should take a long hard think WHY there is a majority view on this !!
and somewhat 'arrogant' of you to think that your opinion is in any way threatening and noone's being defensive when they disagree with you, they're just 'disagreeing with you !!
The representatives of the SA Police force on the bench behind the Prosecution think he's guilty - not to mention many in SA the country who put him on a pedestal for being a Hero and Olympic Athlete achieving so much.......until he shot Reeva and killed her in an act of domestic violence
- you are entitled to your opinion but when even the accused can't get their story straight, it does kind of start reeking a bit of 'guilty' of Murder with Intent somewhat !! They guy can't even take responsibility for firing a bullet out of a car roof when two witnesses who were in the car saw him do it ! the guy's either thick or arrogant or both !!
The one thing to me that is in no doubt is that he is guilty of murder. Whether you believe that he was firing at Reeva or you believe that he was firing at a supposed intruder, either way he knowingly shot four times at someone in an enclosed space with lethal bullets, giving them no chance to escape. He was not threatened by anyone and has no reasonable justification for taking this action other than an over active imagination, which isn't an acceptable excuse for killing someone. He did not warn whoever was in the toilet that he was armed nor did he choose any course of reasonable action to find out who was in there or alternatively to escape the threat. If he had tried to warn whoever he imagined was there (and she wasn't his intended target) then he would have known it was Reeva.
What really concerns me here if the verdict is not guilty, other than a murderer walking away scott free which would already be bad enough, is the wider implications of such a verdict. It would send out a message of shoot first, think later to other gun wielding individuals in SA and the world over.
We are only hearing about this case because of it's celebrity status, but if after all this OP is still not found guilty then why should any other individual in a similar situation be found guilty? What would stop them from citing the OP case as part as their defence and winning on that basis? Basically a not guilty verdict would mean if you can claim you thought it might be someone else that you shot and killed then you could literally get away with murder.
I don't think that is right any way you choose to look at it.
I absolutely think he should be found guilty of something. At the moment i think at least culpable homicide. I don't think the prosecution have proved beyond reasonable doubt that he knew he was shooting Reeva. I think he may not get found guilty of murder but will be found guilty of cp as things stand at the moment.
I bloody well hope he gets sent to prison for a significant number of years.
I am very, very frustrated that the prosecution case was not as strong as I thought it was going to be.
Please Francie-I'd e really interested in seeing it. I'm trying hard to retain objectivity and not form any concrete opinion about his guilt until all the evidence is in.... the surprising thing is that so many of the legal experts infer (obviously don't state) that they think his testimony is so full of contradictions and so unreliable that he is guilty of murder....understandably difficult not to be swayed given their knowledge and experience!
Here you go...not up to date though (ie this is 18th March 2014) http://oscartrial.dstv.com/video/489774/category/0
OP Trial Day 12, 18 March 2014: The legal round table - David O'Sullivan talks to Advocate Mannie Witz and defence attorneys Riaan Louw and Cliff Alexander.
why do this symbol after someone's post, They gave their opinion - so comment on why you disagree or don't understand what they've written - your sarcasm is childish, make your point or don't answer at all.
Sandy, who addressed you? Certainly not me.
Concentrate on the trial.
Sad specimen, his psychiatrist (who desperately needs one herself) is as bad as the luvvies waiting for his autograph and releasing balloons, no respect or semblance of any reality
Sad specimen, his psychiatrist (who desperately needs one herself) is as bad as the luvvies waiting for his autograph and releasing balloons, no respect or semblance of any reality
How low are their IQ's. When OP got bail his family cheered WTF is wrong with them >:(
I think we discussed this last night. The fact that you seldom post an original thought and tend to hang on to the shirt tails of other posters. It is perhaps a coincidence that they were much more pro Pistorius. No matter. You continued to do it today. It's not actually a competition with winners and losers.
Some posters here seem to be getting upset because other people have already decided OP is guilty. So what? Some people have made their mind up on his guilt - some have not. Some may change their minds before it's over - some may not. Everyone is entitled to THEIR opinion.
Ultimately, the judge/s will have to go one way or another in the end based on the evidence as THEY see it.
What part of the evidence presented so far makes you 100% certain?
I too think he is 100% guilty. You only have to step back for one moment and acknowledge the truth of the situation that night, a simple truth that is irrefutable. NO ONE other than OP and Reeva were in that house that night. NO ONE !!!
No burglars, intruders or even the slightest hint in that direction . NO ONE !!! From that simple truth, you have to deduce that not a single outside influence could possibly have been responsible for sending him into a frenzy of fear and terror to the point that he reached for his gun and blasted four shots into a toilet door, a locked toilet door at that.
His version is complete and utter BS. If you accept that, then it has to be a deliberate act.
The one thing to me that is in no doubt is that he is guilty of murder. Whether you believe that he was firing at Reeva or you believe that he was firing at a supposed intruder, either way he knowingly shot four times at someone in an enclosed space with lethal bullets, giving them no chance to escape. He was not threatened by anyone and has no reasonable justification for taking this action other than an over active imagination, which isn't an acceptable excuse for killing someone. He did not warn whoever was in the toilet that he was armed nor did he choose any course of reasonable action to find out who was in there or alternatively to escape the threat. If he had tried to warn whoever he imagined was there (and she wasn't his intended target) then he would have known it was Reeva.
What really concerns me here if the verdict is not guilty, other than a murderer walking away scott free which would already be bad enough, is the wider implications of such a verdict. It would send out a message of shoot first, think later to other gun wielding individuals in SA and the world over.
We are only hearing about this case because of it's celebrity status, but if after all this OP is still not found guilty then why should any other individual in a similar situation be found guilty? What would stop them from citing the OP case as part as their defence and winning on that basis? Basically a not guilty verdict would mean if you can claim you thought it might be someone else that you shot and killed then you could literally get away with murder.
I don't think that is right any way you choose to look at it.
I absolutely agree. And in fact, the useful evidence at the trial notwithstanding, the salient facts of the case are to be found in his bail affidavit: 4 shots into a locked cubicle constitutes intent to seriously harm or kill. One shot could be let off by mistake, four no. He cannot claim self defence because he was not being immediately threatened, and SA law is clear on this point, nor did he actually know (so he claims) who was in the toilet. If he's no idea who is in the toilet, then he has no idea if he's being threatened.
He found himself outside a door with the belief there was a person inside, and a choice to make: he could have run, called the police, shouted a warning that he was armed and would shoot. Instead he chose to fire 4 shots of particularly lethal bullets. Premeditation is a decision taken at the time of the event: he made a decision to shoot multiple times into a confined space, that shows intent, and that is murder.
Comments
Do you even read my posts? Apparently not. Look back over today and see my original thoughts. For the second time I put my neck on the line (well, my house). All by myself, aren't i brave.
I could not give a flying flick what the majority think. I have a mind of my own and i use it. Curiously, some posters seem to find that threatening and get rather defensive. Its odd but its the way these sort of topics seem to go. Anyone prepared to challenge the majority seems to come in for a lot of stick
Confirmation if needed.:o
Gosh now I remember
Possibly the killer Pistorious following claim
100% wrong.
Neither do I, if you are incapable of 'thinking' than you should not be able to carry a firearm legally.
Oh did he really say that?
Of course he may have just been really confused .... but I agree, that is a big slip!
Amen to this. OP MUST go to jail for a very long time. One simply cannot be so lackadaisical when holding a firearm and this message needs to ring out across the world, and not just SA.
The bloke is a mentalist of the highest order.
I know one thing for sure and that is OP will struggle from now on to get a window cleaner!
...yup and the food in her stomach, ...
I can't be bothered to review your day's posts. Nothing I have read from you has been sensible, intelligent or even relevant, is today any different?
That I agree with. And I did indeed see you put your house on the line. I retract what I said.. I'm sorry.
I walk alone in here. I watch the evidence and post my opinions.
I get stick all the time. Do I care? Not in the slightest . It's not a D S popularity contest.
Couldn't help noticing and being stunned by the bizarre contradiction.
It could be 100% correct that he believed it 100% at the time.
perhaps you should take a long hard think WHY there is a majority view on this !!
and somewhat 'arrogant' of you to think that your opinion is in any way threatening and noone's being defensive when they disagree with you, they're just 'disagreeing with you !!
The representatives of the SA Police force on the bench behind the Prosecution think he's guilty - not to mention many in SA the country who put him on a pedestal for being a Hero and Olympic Athlete achieving so much.......until he shot Reeva and killed her in an act of domestic violence
- you are entitled to your opinion but when even the accused can't get their story straight, it does kind of start reeking a bit of 'guilty' of Murder with Intent somewhat !! They guy can't even take responsibility for firing a bullet out of a car roof when two witnesses who were in the car saw him do it ! the guy's either thick or arrogant or both !!
I absolutely think he should be found guilty of something. At the moment i think at least culpable homicide. I don't think the prosecution have proved beyond reasonable doubt that he knew he was shooting Reeva. I think he may not get found guilty of murder but will be found guilty of cp as things stand at the moment.
I bloody well hope he gets sent to prison for a significant number of years.
I am very, very frustrated that the prosecution case was not as strong as I thought it was going to be.
Here you go...not up to date though (ie this is 18th March 2014) http://oscartrial.dstv.com/video/489774/category/0
OP Trial Day 12, 18 March 2014: The legal round table - David O'Sullivan talks to Advocate Mannie Witz and defence attorneys Riaan Louw and Cliff Alexander.
Sandy, who addressed you? Certainly not me.
Concentrate on the trial.
Thick in the head as they say up north. She is no way normal.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2284048/Oscar-Pistorius-aunt-Micki-I-condone-serial-killers-I-understand-them.html
How low are their IQ's. When OP got bail his family cheered WTF is wrong with them >:(
Sorry, but that's totally unfair.
Ultimately, the judge/s will have to go one way or another in the end based on the evidence as THEY see it.
I too think he is 100% guilty. You only have to step back for one moment and acknowledge the truth of the situation that night, a simple truth that is irrefutable. NO ONE other than OP and Reeva were in that house that night. NO ONE !!!
No burglars, intruders or even the slightest hint in that direction . NO ONE !!! From that simple truth, you have to deduce that not a single outside influence could possibly have been responsible for sending him into a frenzy of fear and terror to the point that he reached for his gun and blasted four shots into a toilet door, a locked toilet door at that.
His version is complete and utter BS. If you accept that, then it has to be a deliberate act.
He found himself outside a door with the belief there was a person inside, and a choice to make: he could have run, called the police, shouted a warning that he was armed and would shoot. Instead he chose to fire 4 shots of particularly lethal bullets. Premeditation is a decision taken at the time of the event: he made a decision to shoot multiple times into a confined space, that shows intent, and that is murder.