Originally Posted by latinloulou:
“You are Jenna Edkins and I claim my £5
”
“You are Jenna Edkins and I claim my £5
”
Too Late.......I already claimed it!
Pistorius..prosecution heads for supreme court
53 of 63
Originally Posted by curleys wife:
“Completely agree. But things reported still need to be held up to scrutiny and not just accepted because they fit the negative picture of Pistorius many people already hold. If the claims made by/in the media aren't supported, then that needs to be acknowledged, surely, and treated with some caution?”
“Completely agree. But things reported still need to be held up to scrutiny and not just accepted because they fit the negative picture of Pistorius many people already hold. If the claims made by/in the media aren't supported, then that needs to be acknowledged, surely, and treated with some caution?”
The problem here is that the majority of posters haven't even accepted the legal position. So why would there be any hope that untested "evidence" will ever be treated fairly?
Originally Posted by curleys wife:
“Completely agree. But things reported still need to be held up to scrutiny and not just accepted because they fit the negative picture of Pistorius many people already hold. If the claims made by/in the media aren't supported, then that needs to be acknowledged, surely, and treated with some caution?”
“Completely agree. But things reported still need to be held up to scrutiny and not just accepted because they fit the negative picture of Pistorius many people already hold. If the claims made by/in the media aren't supported, then that needs to be acknowledged, surely, and treated with some caution?”
Absolutely agree!
I remember a short while before the application for leave to appeal, some believed
the fat lady had sung and the case was essentially over.
"Oscar Pistorius is finding life back behind bars 'much easier', his family says - as prosecutors are seriously considering not appealing his 'lenient' six-year sentence for murder, MailOnline can reveal. "
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-sentence.html
Hi everyone I have been lurking on this thread and hope it's ok if I butt in now and again
Originally Posted by porky42:
“The problem here is that the majority of posters haven't even accepted the legal position. So why would there be any hope that untested "evidence" will ever be treated fairly?”
“The problem here is that the majority of posters haven't even accepted the legal position. So why would there be any hope that untested "evidence" will ever be treated fairly?”
What legal position would that be-- Murder DE??
Originally Posted by Moody Blue:
“Too Late.......I already claimed it!”
“Too Late.......I already claimed it!
”
Typical the one day I didn't read back over the same old, same old stuff - great minds?
Ever since this case started great emphasis has been placed on Pistorius’ disability. Now I wonder why this should be given that it was the one feature of his life he consistently played down. As he quoted often, "You are not disabled by the disabilities you have but enabled by the abilities you have"
However, let us suppose for a minute there had been an intruder in the toilet and Pistorius’ had shot him (probably not a bad idea to remove such an incompetent intruder from the gene pool). The headlines would be ‘Blade Runner courageously saves his girlfriend in home intrusion incident’. His PR machine would go into overdrive milking it for all it was worth, probably suggesting he should get a medal for his valour.
You can absolutely guarantee one thing; there would be no mention of a disability that would distract from the enhanced macho image; that would be unthinkable to Pistorius.
So why have we been given this image of Pistorius acting like a ninja so scared out of his wits that his wailing and screaming was at such a high pitch he was mistaken for a woman. Why were there so many expert witnesses whose sole purpose was to highlight his disability. Why did we have to witness Pistorius doing a truly cringeworthily hobgoblin act in court in full view of the world’s media purely to demonstrate his limitations. All this is totally at odds, an anathema, to how Pistorius betrayed himself before he killed Reeva.
The reason is simple? Unpalatable as it was to Pistorius his disability was the only card the defence had to play to try and get him off a murder charge. How he must have hated that, especially his demeaning ‘performance’ in court. That really destroyed his carefully crafted ‘bullet in the chamber’ image for ever
However, let us suppose for a minute there had been an intruder in the toilet and Pistorius’ had shot him (probably not a bad idea to remove such an incompetent intruder from the gene pool). The headlines would be ‘Blade Runner courageously saves his girlfriend in home intrusion incident’. His PR machine would go into overdrive milking it for all it was worth, probably suggesting he should get a medal for his valour.
You can absolutely guarantee one thing; there would be no mention of a disability that would distract from the enhanced macho image; that would be unthinkable to Pistorius.
So why have we been given this image of Pistorius acting like a ninja so scared out of his wits that his wailing and screaming was at such a high pitch he was mistaken for a woman. Why were there so many expert witnesses whose sole purpose was to highlight his disability. Why did we have to witness Pistorius doing a truly cringeworthily hobgoblin act in court in full view of the world’s media purely to demonstrate his limitations. All this is totally at odds, an anathema, to how Pistorius betrayed himself before he killed Reeva.
The reason is simple? Unpalatable as it was to Pistorius his disability was the only card the defence had to play to try and get him off a murder charge. How he must have hated that, especially his demeaning ‘performance’ in court. That really destroyed his carefully crafted ‘bullet in the chamber’ image for ever
Originally Posted by Jeremy99:
“Ever since this case started great emphasis has been placed on Pistorius’ disability. Now I wonder why this should be given that it was the one feature of his life he consistently played down. As he quoted often, "You are not disabled by the disabilities you have but enabled by the abilities you have"
However, let us suppose for a minute there had been an intruder in the toilet and Pistorius’ had shot him (probably not a bad idea to remove such an incompetent intruder from the gene pool). The headlines would be ‘Blade Runner courageously saves his girlfriend in home intrusion incident’. His PR machine would go into overdrive milking it for all it was worth, probably suggesting he should get a medal for his valour.
You can absolutely guarantee one thing; there would be no mention of a disability that would distract from the enhanced macho image; that would be unthinkable to Pistorius.
So why have we been given this image of Pistorius acting like a ninja so scared out of his wits that his wailing and screaming was at such a high pitch he was mistaken for a woman. Why were there so many expert witnesses whose sole purpose was to highlight his disability. Why did we have to witness Pistorius doing a truly cringeworthily hobgoblin act in court in full view of the world’s media purely to demonstrate his limitations. All this is totally at odds, an anathema, to how Pistorius betrayed himself before he killed Reeva.
The reason is simple? Unpalatable as it was to Pistorius his disability was the only card the defence had to play to try and get him off a murder charge. How he must have hated that, especially his demeaning ‘performance’ in court. That really destroyed his carefully crafted ‘bullet in the chamber’ image for ever”
“Ever since this case started great emphasis has been placed on Pistorius’ disability. Now I wonder why this should be given that it was the one feature of his life he consistently played down. As he quoted often, "You are not disabled by the disabilities you have but enabled by the abilities you have"
However, let us suppose for a minute there had been an intruder in the toilet and Pistorius’ had shot him (probably not a bad idea to remove such an incompetent intruder from the gene pool). The headlines would be ‘Blade Runner courageously saves his girlfriend in home intrusion incident’. His PR machine would go into overdrive milking it for all it was worth, probably suggesting he should get a medal for his valour.
You can absolutely guarantee one thing; there would be no mention of a disability that would distract from the enhanced macho image; that would be unthinkable to Pistorius.
So why have we been given this image of Pistorius acting like a ninja so scared out of his wits that his wailing and screaming was at such a high pitch he was mistaken for a woman. Why were there so many expert witnesses whose sole purpose was to highlight his disability. Why did we have to witness Pistorius doing a truly cringeworthily hobgoblin act in court in full view of the world’s media purely to demonstrate his limitations. All this is totally at odds, an anathema, to how Pistorius betrayed himself before he killed Reeva.
The reason is simple? Unpalatable as it was to Pistorius his disability was the only card the defence had to play to try and get him off a murder charge. How he must have hated that, especially his demeaning ‘performance’ in court. That really destroyed his carefully crafted ‘bullet in the chamber’ image for ever”
Hobgoblin act?!
You have answered your own question earlier in your post:
Q: why have we been given this image of Pistorius acting like a ninja so scared out of his wits that his wailing and screaming was at such a high pitch he was mistaken for a woman. Why were there so many expert witnesses whose sole purpose was to highlight his disability?
A: .. it was the one feature of his life he consistently played down. As he quoted often, "You are not disabled by the disabilities you have but enabled by the abilities you have
He has made his name on the track through trying to play down his disability, to the point where he fought to compete with able bodied athletes. But whether, he, south Africa, you or I like it or not, he is significantly disabled. And perhaps the defence felt that there needed to be a reminder of this. As Roux said, people don't see a vulnerable disabled man, with compromised balance, on his stumps, instead they see Pistorius in his yellow and green, blades on, medals swinging round his neck, sprinting to the bathroom. The reality of his disability shatters more than just Pistorius 's own illusions.
In recent news articles I am shocked by the audacity of the statements being put out by Andrew Fawcett, one of Pistorius’ lawyers. Whilst I recognise the defence has probably reached a point of desperation one has to ask what gives Andrew Fawcet the right to think he can decide……
“This matter has been legally exhausted to a point beyond legal and human comprehension”
“The state’s application evokes a feeling that enough is enough”
Sorry mate, as a human my comprehension is far from exhausted and enough will be enough only when justice is finally done.
“This matter has been legally exhausted to a point beyond legal and human comprehension”
“The state’s application evokes a feeling that enough is enough”
Sorry mate, as a human my comprehension is far from exhausted and enough will be enough only when justice is finally done.
Originally Posted by curleys wife:
“Hobgoblin act?!
You have answered your own question earlier in your post:
Q: why have we been given this image of Pistorius acting like a ninja so scared out of his wits that his wailing and screaming was at such a high pitch he was mistaken for a woman. Why were there so many expert witnesses whose sole purpose was to highlight his disability?
A: .. it was the one feature of his life he consistently played down. As he quoted often, "You are not disabled by the disabilities you have but enabled by the abilities you have
He has made his name on the track through trying to play down his disability, to the point where he fought to compete with able bodied athletes. But whether, he, south Africa, you or I like it or not, he is significantly disabled. And perhaps the defence felt that there needed to be a reminder of this. As Roux said, people don't see a vulnerable disabled man, with compromised balance, on his stumps, instead they see Pistorius in his yellow and green, blades on, medals swinging round his neck, sprinting to the bathroom. The reality of his disability shatters more than just Pistorius 's own illusions.”
“Hobgoblin act?!
You have answered your own question earlier in your post:
Q: why have we been given this image of Pistorius acting like a ninja so scared out of his wits that his wailing and screaming was at such a high pitch he was mistaken for a woman. Why were there so many expert witnesses whose sole purpose was to highlight his disability?
A: .. it was the one feature of his life he consistently played down. As he quoted often, "You are not disabled by the disabilities you have but enabled by the abilities you have
He has made his name on the track through trying to play down his disability, to the point where he fought to compete with able bodied athletes. But whether, he, south Africa, you or I like it or not, he is significantly disabled. And perhaps the defence felt that there needed to be a reminder of this. As Roux said, people don't see a vulnerable disabled man, with compromised balance, on his stumps, instead they see Pistorius in his yellow and green, blades on, medals swinging round his neck, sprinting to the bathroom. The reality of his disability shatters more than just Pistorius 's own illusions.”
A typical Pistorian defensive response that completely misses the point. However, I would have expected no less. No further comment needed
Originally Posted by Jeremy99:
“In recent news articles I am shocked by the audacity of the statements being put out by Andrew Fawcett, one of Pistorius’ lawyers. Whilst I recognise the defence has probably reached a point of desperation one has to ask what gives Andrew Fawcet the right to think he can decide……
“This matter has been legally exhausted to a point beyond legal and human comprehension”
“The state’s application evokes a feeling that enough is enough”
Sorry mate, as a human my comprehension is far from exhausted and enough will be enough only when justice is finally done.”
“In recent news articles I am shocked by the audacity of the statements being put out by Andrew Fawcett, one of Pistorius’ lawyers. Whilst I recognise the defence has probably reached a point of desperation one has to ask what gives Andrew Fawcet the right to think he can decide……
“This matter has been legally exhausted to a point beyond legal and human comprehension”
“The state’s application evokes a feeling that enough is enough”
Sorry mate, as a human my comprehension is far from exhausted and enough will be enough only when justice is finally done.”
I think he is saying the defense team has legally exhausted itself.
Originally Posted by Jeremy99:
“A typical Pistorian defensive response that completely misses the point. However, I would have expected no less. No further comment needed”
“A typical Pistorian defensive response that completely misses the point. However, I would have expected no less. No further comment needed
”
Another meaningless post that calls names and fails -again- to actually engage with the point made.
Originally Posted by Jeremy99:
“Ever since this case started great emphasis has been placed on Pistorius’ disability. Now I wonder why this should be given that it was the one feature of his life he consistently played down. As he quoted often, "You are not disabled by the disabilities you have but enabled by the abilities you have"
However, let us suppose for a minute there had been an intruder in the toilet and Pistorius’ had shot him (probably not a bad idea to remove such an incompetent intruder from the gene pool). The headlines would be ‘Blade Runner courageously saves his girlfriend in home intrusion incident’. His PR machine would go into overdrive milking it for all it was worth, probably suggesting he should get a medal for his valour.
You can absolutely guarantee one thing; there would be no mention of a disability that would distract from the enhanced macho image; that would be unthinkable to Pistorius.
So why have we been given this image of Pistorius acting like a ninja so scared out of his wits that his wailing and screaming was at such a high pitch he was mistaken for a woman. Why were there so many expert witnesses whose sole purpose was to highlight his disability. Why did we have to witness Pistorius doing a truly cringeworthily hobgoblin act in court in full view of the world’s media purely to demonstrate his limitations. All this is totally at odds, an anathema, to how Pistorius betrayed himself before he killed Reeva.
The reason is simple? Unpalatable as it was to Pistorius his disability was the only card the defence had to play to try and get him off a murder charge. How he must have hated that, especially his demeaning ‘performance’ in court. That really destroyed his carefully crafted ‘bullet in the chamber’ image for ever”
“Ever since this case started great emphasis has been placed on Pistorius’ disability. Now I wonder why this should be given that it was the one feature of his life he consistently played down. As he quoted often, "You are not disabled by the disabilities you have but enabled by the abilities you have"
However, let us suppose for a minute there had been an intruder in the toilet and Pistorius’ had shot him (probably not a bad idea to remove such an incompetent intruder from the gene pool). The headlines would be ‘Blade Runner courageously saves his girlfriend in home intrusion incident’. His PR machine would go into overdrive milking it for all it was worth, probably suggesting he should get a medal for his valour.
You can absolutely guarantee one thing; there would be no mention of a disability that would distract from the enhanced macho image; that would be unthinkable to Pistorius.
So why have we been given this image of Pistorius acting like a ninja so scared out of his wits that his wailing and screaming was at such a high pitch he was mistaken for a woman. Why were there so many expert witnesses whose sole purpose was to highlight his disability. Why did we have to witness Pistorius doing a truly cringeworthily hobgoblin act in court in full view of the world’s media purely to demonstrate his limitations. All this is totally at odds, an anathema, to how Pistorius betrayed himself before he killed Reeva.
The reason is simple? Unpalatable as it was to Pistorius his disability was the only card the defence had to play to try and get him off a murder charge. How he must have hated that, especially his demeaning ‘performance’ in court. That really destroyed his carefully crafted ‘bullet in the chamber’ image for ever”
BIB Presumably you mean shot him in the exact same circumstances. A dead intruder. OP convicted of murder DE and given 15 years?
Originally Posted by porky42:
“BIB Presumably you mean shot him in the exact same circumstances. A dead intruder. OP convicted of murder DE and given 15 years?”
“BIB Presumably you mean shot him in the exact same circumstances. A dead intruder. OP convicted of murder DE and given 15 years?”
Of course!
Originally Posted by porky42:
“BIB Presumably you mean shot him in the exact same circumstances. A dead intruder. OP convicted of murder DE and given 15 years?”
“BIB Presumably you mean shot him in the exact same circumstances. A dead intruder. OP convicted of murder DE and given 15 years?”
Originally Posted by curleys wife:
“Of course!”
“Of course!”
Can you say "substantial and compelling circumstances"?
Originally Posted by Stormy Night:
“Can you say "substantial and compelling circumstances"?”
“Can you say "substantial and compelling circumstances"?”
Which would be....?
Originally Posted by Stormy Night:
“Uh.... actual intruder?”
“Uh.... actual intruder?”
Nothing else? Okay....So how much would you take off for an actual intruder?
Originally Posted by curleys wife:
“Nothing else? Okay....So how much would you take off for an actual intruder?”
“Nothing else? Okay....So how much would you take off for an actual intruder?”
Probably would have given him something similar to the terms of the 5 year sentence Masipa gave him for CH. Maybe one year custodial and 4 on probation.
Originally Posted by Stormy Night:
“Probably would have given him something similar to the terms of the 5 year sentence Masipa gave him for CH. Maybe one year custodial and 4 on probation.”
“Probably would have given him something similar to the terms of the 5 year sentence Masipa gave him for CH. Maybe one year custodial and 4 on probation.”
If the circumstances were the same he still only heard a few noises and fired before the door even opened.
Why such a heavy discount?
Originally Posted by Stormy Night:
“Probably would have given him something similar to the terms of the 5 year sentence Masipa gave him for CH. Maybe one year custodial and 4 on probation.”
“Probably would have given him something similar to the terms of the 5 year sentence Masipa gave him for CH. Maybe one year custodial and 4 on probation.”
So 5 years, one custodial for actually killing an intruder in the same circumstances? As CH, presumably?
But closer to 15 years custodial for mistaking his girlfriend for an intruder and shooting her as a result? As DE (bordering on DD as the state are trying to argue?)
Originally Posted by porky42:
“
If the circumstances were the same he still only heard a few noises and fired before the door even opened.
Why such a heavy discount?”
“
If the circumstances were the same he still only heard a few noises and fired before the door even opened.
Why such a heavy discount?”
Reality... or let's say "Truth & Consequences."
Originally Posted by Stormy Night:
“Reality... or let's say "Truth & Consequences."”
“Reality... or let's say "Truth & Consequences."”
If in a hypothetical an intruder was substituted it would not normally be legitimate to compare the sentences because if there really was an intruder there would be expected to be more cues for the accused and in essence a more believable situation.
Unusually in this case we already have a settled finding that OP believed there was an intruder so we can make the comparison.
4 or 5 years for killing an unarmed boy or 15 years for killing Reeva or a deadly armed intruder?
Originally Posted by porky42:
“If in a hypothetical an intruder was substituted it would not normally be legitimate to compare the sentences because if there really was an intruder there would be expected to be more cues for the accused and in essence a more believable situation.
Unusually in this case we already have a settled finding that OP believed there was an intruder so we can make the comparison.
4 or 5 years for killing an unarmed boy or 15 years for killing Reeva or a deadly armed intruder?”
“If in a hypothetical an intruder was substituted it would not normally be legitimate to compare the sentences because if there really was an intruder there would be expected to be more cues for the accused and in essence a more believable situation.
Unusually in this case we already have a settled finding that OP believed there was an intruder so we can make the comparison.
4 or 5 years for killing an unarmed boy or 15 years for killing Reeva or a deadly armed intruder?”
Porky-- I do not have to accept that he believed there was an intruder in the toilet. As the SCA made it very clear-- he had no way of knowing who was in that toilet. I don't have to grant him any points for acting on an unjustified paranoid self-delusion.
As many of us have pointed out, over and over again, hearing a noise go bump in the night-- or hearing your girlfriend go to the bathroom-- does not justify jumping to erroneous conclusions and opening fire. Yes, even if he is disabled and extra fearful.
Originally Posted by Stormy Night:
“Porky-- I do not have to accept that he believed there was an intruder in the toilet. As the SCA made it very clear-- he had no way of knowing who was in that toilet. I don't have to grant him any points for acting on an unjustified paranoid self-delusion.
As many of us have pointed out, over and over again, hearing a noise go bump in the night-- or hearing your girlfriend go to the bathroom-- does not justify jumping to erroneous conclusions and opening fire. Yes, even if he is disabled and extra fearful.”
“Porky-- I do not have to accept that he believed there was an intruder in the toilet. As the SCA made it very clear-- he had no way of knowing who was in that toilet. I don't have to grant him any points for acting on an unjustified paranoid self-delusion.
As many of us have pointed out, over and over again, hearing a noise go bump in the night-- or hearing your girlfriend go to the bathroom-- does not justify jumping to erroneous conclusions and opening fire. Yes, even if he is disabled and extra fearful.”
Of course it doesn't justify it - hence why it was found to be unlawful.
But if he had heard the noise, jumped to the same conclusion, not checked on the whereabouts of his girlfriend, grabbed the gun, gone to the bathroom, heard another noise, fired and consequently killed an actual intruder, you have said that a 5 year sentence with only one of those being custodial would have been adequate. You therefore seem to be advocating a ten year hike on that sentence for Pistorius failing to notice Reeva was not in the bedroom.
Originally Posted by curleys wife:
“Of course it doesn't justify it - hence why it was found to be unlawful.
But if he had heard the noise, jumped to the same conclusion, not checked on the whereabouts of his girlfriend, grabbed the gun, gone to the bathroom, heard another noise, fired and consequently killed an actual intruder, you have said that a 5 year sentence with only one of those being custodial would have been adequate. You therefore seem to be advocating a ten year hike on that sentence for Pistorius failing to notice Reeva was not in the bedroom.”
“Of course it doesn't justify it - hence why it was found to be unlawful.
But if he had heard the noise, jumped to the same conclusion, not checked on the whereabouts of his girlfriend, grabbed the gun, gone to the bathroom, heard another noise, fired and consequently killed an actual intruder, you have said that a 5 year sentence with only one of those being custodial would have been adequate. You therefore seem to be advocating a ten year hike on that sentence for Pistorius failing to notice Reeva was not in the bedroom.”
Aah, it's not like that at all. There's much more to it. For one thing, if it had been an actual intruder, I presume I would not have to dispense with the screams evidence. There would be a different "truth" to the story.
And if he had shot an actual intruder-- either an unarmed "boy," as you say, or a hardened criminal with many murders under his belt-- one would need to evaluate the end result as a very different consequence of his actions. An unarmed youth might draw comparisons with Reeva's killing whereas an armed intruder with a criminal past including murder might generate a public outcry to award him a medal, as Jeremy suggested earlier.
Definitely not black and white... all kinds of circumstances and consequences to consider.
53 of 63
