Bullets for his Valentine - Pistorius bailed

Fed up talking videogames? Why?
User avatar
Lotus
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Bullets for his Valentine - Pistorius bailed
by Lotus » Fri Sep 12, 2014 1:53 pm

[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. :lol: :fp: Predictable and pathetic.

Image ImageImage
User avatar
Meep
Member
Joined in 2010
Location: Belfast

PostRe: Bullets for his Valentine - Pistorius bailed
by Meep » Fri Sep 12, 2014 6:25 pm

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.

User avatar
FatDaz
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Bullets for his Valentine - Pistorius bailed
by FatDaz » Sat Sep 13, 2014 7:51 am

[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.

User avatar
Partridge Iciclebubbles
"Special"
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Bullets for his Valentine - Pistorius bailed
by Partridge Iciclebubbles » Sat Sep 13, 2014 8:09 am

[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!

Image
User avatar
Vermin
Member
Joined in 2008
AKA: TimeGhost

PostRe: Bullets for his Valentine - Pistorius bailed
by Vermin » Sat Sep 13, 2014 2:57 pm

:lol:

User avatar
Advent7
Member
Joined in 2009

PostRe: Bullets for his Valentine - Pistorius bailed
by Advent7 » Tue Sep 16, 2014 6:17 am

Like poetry from the pages of an unpublished book.

Image
User avatar
Eighthours
Emeritus
Emeritus
Joined in 2008
Location: Bristol

PostRe: Bullets for his Valentine - Pistorius bailed
by Eighthours » Tue Sep 16, 2014 7:29 am

[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.

User avatar
Rocksleddy
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Bullets for his Valentine - Pistorius bailed
by Rocksleddy » Tue Sep 16, 2014 10:36 am

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.

Image
User avatar
Partridge Iciclebubbles
"Special"
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Bullets for his Valentine - Pistorius bailed
by Partridge Iciclebubbles » Tue Sep 16, 2014 11:02 am

[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.


;)

Image
User avatar
Partridge Iciclebubbles
"Special"
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Bullets for his Valentine - Pistorius bailed
by Partridge Iciclebubbles » Tue Sep 16, 2014 11:03 am

[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.


;)

Image
User avatar
1cmanny1
Member ♥
Joined in 2008
Location: New Zealand

PostRe: Bullets for his Valentine - Pistorius bailed
by 1cmanny1 » Tue Sep 16, 2014 11:09 am

I hope someone knifes him. He is clearly guilty.

Image
User avatar
Eighthours
Emeritus
Emeritus
Joined in 2008
Location: Bristol

PostRe: Bullets for his Valentine - Pistorius bailed
by Eighthours » Tue Sep 16, 2014 1:24 pm

[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!

User avatar
Gandalf
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Bullets for his Valentine - Pistorius bailed
by Gandalf » Tue Sep 16, 2014 1:53 pm

[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.....

User avatar
Partridge Iciclebubbles
"Special"
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Bullets for his Valentine - Pistorius bailed
by Partridge Iciclebubbles » Tue Sep 16, 2014 2:48 pm

[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.

Image
User avatar
Gandalf
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Bullets for his Valentine - Pistorius bailed
by Gandalf » Tue Sep 16, 2014 2:53 pm

[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??? :lol:

No, I was on about the local gobshite Dblock.

User avatar
Somebody Else's Presents
Member ♥
Joined in 2008
Location: Wherever you want me to be, baby

PostRe: Bullets for his Valentine - Pistorius bailed
by Somebody Else's Presents » Tue Sep 16, 2014 2:55 pm

[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.

Image
User avatar
Partridge Iciclebubbles
"Special"
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Bullets for his Valentine - Pistorius bailed
by Partridge Iciclebubbles » Tue Sep 16, 2014 2:59 pm

[iup=3565890]Gandalf[/iup] wrote:
[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??? :lol:

No, I was on about the local gobshite Dblock.


I was the one posting so I wasn't sure who you were on about. Does Dblock have an opinion on this case? I would imagine he thinks it was all just a conspiracy by the Illuminati to ensure that the USA can gain control of the Paralympic oil reserves. ;)

[iup=3565895]Somebody Else's Problem[/iup] wrote:
[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.


Yeah, while it is incredibly unlikely that he had no idea who was in the bathroom, but I guess there is a tiny chance that he genuinely thought it was a burglar. It's much easier for us to be judges on here than actually being a judge in court.

Image
User avatar
Poser
Banned
Joined in 2008
Location: Newcastle Upon Tyne

PostRe: Bullets for his Valentine - Pistorius bailed
by Poser » Tue Sep 16, 2014 3:05 pm

[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 thought pre-meditation was a prerequisite of murder?

Image
User avatar
Partridge Iciclebubbles
"Special"
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Bullets for his Valentine - Pistorius bailed
by Partridge Iciclebubbles » Tue Sep 16, 2014 3:14 pm

[iup=3565913]Poser[/iup] wrote:
[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 thought pre-meditation was a prerequisite of murder?


Earlier, Judge Masipa cleared the world-renowned athlete of both premeditated and murder without premeditation.

http://news.sky.com/story/1333817/oscar ... eva-murder


I guess there is a difference between planning something for days/weeks/months and murdering somebody in a fit of rage.

Image
User avatar
Poser
Banned
Joined in 2008
Location: Newcastle Upon Tyne

PostRe: Bullets for his Valentine - Pistorius bailed
by Poser » Tue Sep 16, 2014 3:17 pm

Ah, ok, cheers. There are obviously discrepancies between their laws and ours, too.

I guess, in South Africa, the legal system needs more types/categories of murder. A bit like Inuits and "words for snow".

Image

Return to “Stuff”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: JediDragon05, O Raxmas Tree, Poser, Rhubarb, Skarjo and 61 guests