Bullets for his Valentine - Pistorius bailed

He admitted he thought someone was behind the door, surely someone who has experience with firearms would know that shooting four times could kill whoever was behind the door? I get that there is no evidence to suggest he wanted to kill Reeva, but he intended to kill the person in the bathroom.

[iup=3562502]Eighthours[/iup] wrote:I heard on the radio this morning that there are pretty much no legal experts in SA who think the judge has got this right, and there could well be an appeal. Common sense says that firing so many shots at a bathroom door cannot be said to have no intention of killing someone, so people are baffled by the judge's comments in this regard.

Frankly, I think that Pistorius has been lying his arse off throughout. He clearly has a temper problem, and I reckon something happened between him and Reeva that evening which made him so angry that he shot his girlfriend while she was hiding in the bathroom.

This. Big time.

Like Eighty said you don't fire six shots into a locked room without the intent to kill someone....

[iup=2983132]Bacon[/iup] wrote:

Spindash wrote:Lead detective has reached his verdict

https://twitter.com/Joey7Barton/status/304962677401350144 wrote:@piersmorgan What? He definitely shot her dead. He's more bang to rights than your mate Jimmy Savile.

also, this makes my hate for piers morgan so strong now, it's @ maximum levels.

This slimy strawberry floating moron has been going on for the past few months about how guns need to be banned from the US but looking at his Twitter he's pretty much applauding Pistorius and his legal team

he's the worst human on television, fickle mummy strawberry floater who deserves a bullet in the face himself

You just know he's angling to have him on his ITV show where he gets celebs to blub.

To be fair, there has been a lot of tweets from legal people saying they think the judge has handled it brilliantly. So it's not all one way.

William Heath - former judge:

"But when you consider the judgement, it is evident from that that she considered the facts, that she considered the law, and that's all that she's required to do.

There's a lot of criticism, they thought she should have convicted the accused of murder, therefore there's a lot of unhappiness. But I'm of the view that that's really subjective. If the lawyers would apply their minds as they're supposed to do, they should analyse the circumstances and find themselves in the same position she found herself in,"

Pierre de Vos, Cape Town University law professor:

The law is not an exact science. Reasonable people can disagree on how it should be applied in a case.

[iup=3562530]Gandalf[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3562502]Eighthours[/iup] wrote:I heard on the radio this morning that there are pretty much no legal experts in SA who think the judge has got this right, and there could well be an appeal. Common sense says that firing so many shots at a bathroom door cannot be said to have no intention of killing someone, so people are baffled by the judge's comments in this regard.

Frankly, I think that Pistorius has been lying his arse off throughout. He clearly has a temper problem, and I reckon something happened between him and Reeva that evening which made him so angry that he shot his girlfriend while she was hiding in the bathroom.

This. Big time.

Like Eighty said you don't fire six shots into a locked room without the intent to kill someone....

Four shots.

Some bint on the Guardian's site trying to make this about race and misogyny. Predictable and pathetic.

The sad truth is that if a woman gets murdered the most likely suspect is their partner. Basically, more than half of all women who are murdered are killed by either a former or current boyfriend/husband. That alone makes it very likely that Pistorius is guilty, even if it does not prove it. On top of that, there are the very questionable circumstances and his question dodging.

Secondly, I would point out that he did clearly intended to kill when fired the shots through the door as no reasonable person could interpret that otherwise. Thirdly, he did not call out any warning to victim (even if we accept his story about not knowing who the victim was) because if he had then he would have received a response and, presumably, not have fired. If the shots were not intended to kill then why not call out a warning first? The only reason you would fire without warning is because you intended to kill.

I think this makes it reasonably clear that he is guilty of murder, as he clearly acted with the intention of killing someone. Self-defence is not a valid argument against it because the circumstances prove he did not attempt to repel the assailant but rather acted only to kill. At least, that's how I interpret it.

[iup=3562962]Meep[/iup] wrote:The sad truth is that if a woman gets murdered the most likely suspect is their partner. Basically, more than half of all women who are murdered are killed by either a former or current boyfriend/husband. That alone makes it very likely that Pistorius is guilty, even if it does not prove it. On top of that, there are the very questionable circumstances and his question dodging.

Secondly, I would point out that he did clearly intended to kill when fired the shots through the door as no reasonable person could interpret that otherwise. Thirdly, he did not call out any warning to victim (even if we accept his story about not knowing who the victim was) because if he had then he would have received a response and, presumably, not have fired. If the shots were not intended to kill then why not call out a warning first? The only reason you would fire without warning is because you intended to kill.

I think this makes it reasonably clear that he is guilty of murder, as he clearly acted with the intention of killing someone. Self-defence is not a valid argument against it because the circumstances prove he did not attempt to repel the assailant but rather acted only to kill. At least, that's how I interpret it.

Pretty much spot on.

What it boils down to is that the judge doesn't believe him calling him a "poor witness" however the onus is on prosecution to prove his intention and she feels their case was not not strong enough to prove "beyond reasonable doubt"

As unlikely as his version of events are, the prosecution could not disprove them entirely.

But basically he's got away with murder, and it's looking increasingly like he won't even serve a single day in prison.

[iup=3562502]Eighthours[/iup] wrote:I heard on the radio this morning that there are pretty much no legal experts in SA who think the judge has got this right, and there could well be an appeal. Common sense says that firing so many shots at a bathroom door cannot be said to have no intention of killing someone, so people are baffled by the judge's comments in this regard.

Frankly, I think that Pistorius has been lying his arse off throughout. He clearly has a temper problem, and I reckon something happened between him and Reeva that evening which made him so angry that he shot his girlfriend while she was hiding in the bathroom.

[iup=3488400]Eighthours[/iup] wrote:

Somebody Else's Problem » Tue Jun 24, 2014 12:11 pm wrote:

Eighthours » Tue Jun 24, 2014 12:09 pm wrote:The jury have been gotten to!!

EDIT: Or... er... Brooks is innocent and Coulson is guilty.

Like strawberry float she is.

In the words of the great Charlie Higson, could it be possible that the jury who spent 7 months hearing evidence know more about the case than people on Twitter?

Your existing prejudices have not been reinforced, oh noes! How confusing for you!

Like poetry from the pages of an unpublished book.

[iup=3563414]Moggy[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3562502]Eighthours[/iup] wrote:I heard on the radio this morning that there are pretty much no legal experts in SA who think the judge has got this right, and there could well be an appeal. Common sense says that firing so many shots at a bathroom door cannot be said to have no intention of killing someone, so people are baffled by the judge's comments in this regard.

Frankly, I think that Pistorius has been lying his arse off throughout. He clearly has a temper problem, and I reckon something happened between him and Reeva that evening which made him so angry that he shot his girlfriend while she was hiding in the bathroom.

[iup=3488400]Eighthours[/iup] wrote:

Somebody Else's Problem » Tue Jun 24, 2014 12:11 pm wrote:

Eighthours » Tue Jun 24, 2014 12:09 pm wrote:The jury have been gotten to!!

EDIT: Or... er... Brooks is innocent and Coulson is guilty.

Like strawberry float she is.

In the words of the great Charlie Higson, could it be possible that the jury who spent 7 months hearing evidence know more about the case than people on Twitter?

Your existing prejudices have not been reinforced, oh noes! How confusing for you!

Of course, the difference here is that both we and the legal experts who disagree vehemently with the verdict were actually able to listen to, and in many cases watch, the trial. Nice try though, Moggy.

Except legal opinion seems split on the matter, and let's be honest - there's no way you watched all the trial proceedings. I had to follow parts of it and you'd have to be strawberry floating mental; in between pistorious breaking down it was extremely unexciting for long spells. As expected, obviously.

[iup=3565584]Eighthours[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3563414]Moggy[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3562502]Eighthours[/iup] wrote:I heard on the radio this morning that there are pretty much no legal experts in SA who think the judge has got this right, and there could well be an appeal. Common sense says that firing so many shots at a bathroom door cannot be said to have no intention of killing someone, so people are baffled by the judge's comments in this regard.

Frankly, I think that Pistorius has been lying his arse off throughout. He clearly has a temper problem, and I reckon something happened between him and Reeva that evening which made him so angry that he shot his girlfriend while she was hiding in the bathroom.

[iup=3488400]Eighthours[/iup] wrote:

Somebody Else's Problem » Tue Jun 24, 2014 12:11 pm wrote:

Eighthours » Tue Jun 24, 2014 12:09 pm wrote:The jury have been gotten to!!

EDIT: Or... er... Brooks is innocent and Coulson is guilty.

Like strawberry float she is.

In the words of the great Charlie Higson, could it be possible that the jury who spent 7 months hearing evidence know more about the case than people on Twitter?

Your existing prejudices have not been reinforced, oh noes! How confusing for you!

Of course, the difference here is that both we and the legal experts who disagree vehemently with the verdict were actually able to listen to, and in many cases watch, the trial. Nice try though, Moggy.

Oh come on Eighty, I didn't even bother to use this quote! And you would be better off arguing that the cases are not the same as Brooks/Duggan as they were jury trials and this was just a judge.

[iup=3333209]Eighthours[/iup] wrote:Can't say I have much sympathy with Duggan, given the life he chose to lead. I do have sympathy for his family, although not for their revisionist attempts to make him out to be the opposite of the criminal gang member he so clearly was, and certainly not for the vile scenes in court after the verdict. I roll my eyes at people who complain vociferously about jury decisions until a verdict supports their own prejudices, whereupon all of a sudden jury trials are marvellous. This jury sat through three months' worth of evidence and are therefore in a much better position to pass judgement on the case than Anonymous Internet Commentator #3.

Armed police should definitely wear cameras, it would remove so much of the ambiguity when it comes to cases like this.

[iup=3565584]Eighthours[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3563414]Moggy[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3562502]Eighthours[/iup] wrote:I heard on the radio this morning that there are pretty much no legal experts in SA who think the judge has got this right, and there could well be an appeal. Common sense says that firing so many shots at a bathroom door cannot be said to have no intention of killing someone, so people are baffled by the judge's comments in this regard.

Frankly, I think that Pistorius has been lying his arse off throughout. He clearly has a temper problem, and I reckon something happened between him and Reeva that evening which made him so angry that he shot his girlfriend while she was hiding in the bathroom.

[iup=3488400]Eighthours[/iup] wrote:

Somebody Else's Problem » Tue Jun 24, 2014 12:11 pm wrote:

Eighthours » Tue Jun 24, 2014 12:09 pm wrote:The jury have been gotten to!!

EDIT: Or... er... Brooks is innocent and Coulson is guilty.

Like strawberry float she is.

In the words of the great Charlie Higson, could it be possible that the jury who spent 7 months hearing evidence know more about the case than people on Twitter?

Your existing prejudices have not been reinforced, oh noes! How confusing for you!

Of course, the difference here is that both we and the legal experts who disagree vehemently with the verdict were actually able to listen to, and in many cases watch, the trial. Nice try though, Moggy.

Oh come on Eighty, I didn't even bother to use the quote I am shoving in below! And you would be better off arguing that the cases are not the same as Brooks/Duggan as they were jury trials and this was just a judge.

[iup=3333209]Eighthours[/iup] wrote:Can't say I have much sympathy with Duggan, given the life he chose to lead. I do have sympathy for his family, although not for their revisionist attempts to make him out to be the opposite of the criminal gang member he so clearly was, and certainly not for the vile scenes in court after the verdict. I roll my eyes at people who complain vociferously about jury decisions until a verdict supports their own prejudices, whereupon all of a sudden jury trials are marvellous. This jury sat through three months' worth of evidence and are therefore in a much better position to pass judgement on the case than Anonymous Internet Commentator #3.

Armed police should definitely wear cameras, it would remove so much of the ambiguity when it comes to cases like this.

I hope someone knifes him. He is clearly guilty.

[iup=3565671]Moggy[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3565584]Eighthours[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3563414]Moggy[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3562502]Eighthours[/iup] wrote:I heard on the radio this morning that there are pretty much no legal experts in SA who think the judge has got this right, and there could well be an appeal. Common sense says that firing so many shots at a bathroom door cannot be said to have no intention of killing someone, so people are baffled by the judge's comments in this regard.

Frankly, I think that Pistorius has been lying his arse off throughout. He clearly has a temper problem, and I reckon something happened between him and Reeva that evening which made him so angry that he shot his girlfriend while she was hiding in the bathroom.

[iup=3488400]Eighthours[/iup] wrote:

Somebody Else's Problem » Tue Jun 24, 2014 12:11 pm wrote:

Eighthours » Tue Jun 24, 2014 12:09 pm wrote:The jury have been gotten to!!

EDIT: Or... er... Brooks is innocent and Coulson is guilty.

Like strawberry float she is.

In the words of the great Charlie Higson, could it be possible that the jury who spent 7 months hearing evidence know more about the case than people on Twitter?

Your existing prejudices have not been reinforced, oh noes! How confusing for you!

Of course, the difference here is that both we and the legal experts who disagree vehemently with the verdict were actually able to listen to, and in many cases watch, the trial. Nice try though, Moggy.

Oh come on Eighty, I didn't even bother to use the quote I am shoving in below! And you would be better off arguing that the cases are not the same as Brooks/Duggan as they were jury trials and this was just a judge.

[iup=3333209]Eighthours[/iup] wrote:Can't say I have much sympathy with Duggan, given the life he chose to lead. I do have sympathy for his family, although not for their revisionist attempts to make him out to be the opposite of the criminal gang member he so clearly was, and certainly not for the vile scenes in court after the verdict. I roll my eyes at people who complain vociferously about jury decisions until a verdict supports their own prejudices, whereupon all of a sudden jury trials are marvellous. This jury sat through three months' worth of evidence and are therefore in a much better position to pass judgement on the case than Anonymous Internet Commentator #3.

Armed police should definitely wear cameras, it would remove so much of the ambiguity when it comes to cases like this.

You've just made the second part of my argument for me. Cheers!

[iup=3565675]1cmanny1[/iup] wrote:I hope someone knifes him. He is clearly guilty.

You can't say things like that or you'll get GR's resident keyboard warrior getting all righteous on your ass.....

[iup=3565826]Gandalf[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3565675]1cmanny1[/iup] wrote:I hope someone knifes him. He is clearly guilty.

You can't say things like that or you'll get GR's resident keyboard warrior getting all righteous on your ass.....

Are you talking about me? If so, you are wrong, there is no warrior here, I just found it amusing how eighthours had had different reactions to different trial results (as we all do).

My opinion is Pistorius did murder Reeva, although I don't think it was pre-meditated. He obviously has anger issues and was prone to lash out. I am no expert in the UK legal system, let alone the South African one, so I don't know why the judge decided it was not murder, maybe there was some evidence I haven't seen (I did not watch all of the trial) or maybe she felt it was impossible to prove that Pistorius knew it was his girlfriend in the bathroom?

It will be interesting to see what sentence he gets, as I understand it he could get anything from a slap on the wrist to 15 years in jail.

[iup=3565883]Moggy[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3565826]Gandalf[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3565675]1cmanny1[/iup] wrote:I hope someone knifes him. He is clearly guilty.

You can't say things like that or you'll get GR's resident keyboard warrior getting all righteous on your ass.....

Are you talking about me? If so, you are wrong, there is no warrior here, I just found it amusing how eighthours had had different reactions to different trial results (as we all do).

Have I ever called you that???

No, I was on about the local gobshite Dblock.

[iup=3565883]Moggy[/iup] wrote:My opinion is Pistorius did murder Reeva, although I don't think it was pre-meditated. He obviously has anger issues and was prone to lash out. I am no expert in the UK legal system, let alone the South African one, so I don't know why the judge decided it was not murder, maybe there was some evidence I haven't seen (I did not watch all of the trial) or maybe she felt it was impossible to prove that Pistorius knew it was his girlfriend in the bathroom?

I think it's a case of she couldn't say without reasonable doubt that he murdered her.