Blade Runner becomes Blade Gunner **Mod Warning Read OP""

Ihatecuddles · 18-04-2014 8:41am

sopretty wrote: »

He said that she may have used the light on her phone (but he didn't see it). Honestly though, it doesn't make sense. Why would she not turn on a light?

Can I just say, that I believe the lights were on, the shouting was her screaming and running away from him, and him screaming at her, and that he shot her out of fury. Nothing else makes sense.

I never turn the light on when going to the toilet at night. Not when I lived alone or with others.

If I put the light on I'd be squinting trying to get used to it, and it would wake me up a bit.

desbrook · 18-04-2014 9:01am

mauzo! wrote: »

I never turn the light on when going to the toilet at night. Not when I lived alone or with others.

If I put the light on I'd be squinting trying to get used to it, and it would wake me up a bit.

Slightly off topic but do you wash your hands?

fryup · 18-04-2014 9:39am

is all this blubbering from him genuine or is it a tactic ...looking for sympathy playing the victim

Mr Freeze · 18-04-2014 9:48am

fryup wrote: »

is all this blubbering from him genuine or is it a tactic ...looking for sympathy playing the victim

Nel basically says that all the emotional and breaking down is when he is giving false information.

When OP was describing the events after he shot Reeva and started breaking the door down, he didn't break down at all. Nel pointed out that's the difference between when he is lying and telling the truth, everything he did after killing her is probably true, the events leading up to her death are lies according to the state's case.

I think he is guilty anyways, based on what I have seen and heard so far.

Was shocked at the defences last witness though, he did them no favours whatsoever.

sopretty · 18-04-2014 10:05am

mauzo! wrote: »

I never turn the light on when going to the toilet at night. Not when I lived alone or with others.

If I put the light on I'd be squinting trying to get used to it, and it would wake me up a bit.

But according to him, she was awake, on her iphone still.

Deise Vu · 18-04-2014 10:40am

sopretty wrote: »

He said that she may have used the light on her phone (but he didn't see it). Honestly though, it doesn't make sense. Why would she not turn on a light?

Can I just say, that I believe the lights were on, the shouting was her screaming and running away from him, and him screaming at her, and that he shot her out of fury. Nothing else makes sense.

Something eveyone is overlooking is that Reeva's phone was found in the bedroom, not the bathroom. I pointed out in an earlier post that I found it bizarre that OP's own evidence at one point was that he couldn't lift Reeva initially, saw her phone, ran back to the bedroom with it, and then got his own phone.

An awful lot of OP's cock and bull story hangs on her having the phone in the bathroom (using the phone light to find the bathroom, why didn't she ring for help if we were arguing....). .

Hello_MrFox · 18-04-2014 11:34am

So is the general view here that he is guilty?

sopretty · 18-04-2014 11:35am

Hello_MrFox wrote: »

So is the general view here that he is guilty?

Well I think so anyway.

stefan idiot jones · 18-04-2014 11:36am

Hello_MrFox wrote: »

So is the general view here that he is guilty?

As guilty as OJ.

Mr Freeze · 18-04-2014 11:58am

Hello_MrFox wrote: »

So is the general view here that he is guilty?

I think so, on all charges.

desbrook · 18-04-2014 2:15pm

Hello_MrFox wrote: »

So is the general view here that he is guilty?

A better question might be does anyone believe he isn't guilty?

( As distinct from believing he won't be found guilty)

1867IE · 18-04-2014 3:43pm

Ok so there are holes and questions to be answered in relation to the cases for both the defence and prosecution.

But earlier in the week I though this was a great stunt by Barry Roux.

Oscar had done his 6-7 days of cross examination. Said he and Reeva had a loving relationship. Nel said he was lying. Oscar said they got on really well shared great times etc etc. Nel was having none of it.

Big debate about the inside out jeans. Nel said she was in a rush taking them off. Said she and Oscar had a fight, she never leaves clothes like that etc etc

Then, in a quick 45seconds or so:

Barry Roux: Mr Pistorious can you tell me what you see in this picture?
OP: Reeva's jeans m'lady.
Barry Roux: and what do you observe about then?
OP: they're not inside out m'lady. They're outside out.

And Mr Pistorious, can you read to me what is written in this card, the one Reeva had left to to open on Valentines Day?
OP: roses are red violets are blue, today is a great day to tell you I love you.

BOOM.
Roux injects that tiny element of doubt into the 6-7 days that Nel spent cross examining him.

desbrook · 18-04-2014 5:07pm

1867IE wrote: »

Ok so there are holes and questions to be answered in relation to the cases for both the defence and prosecution.

But earlier in the week I though this was a great stunt by Barry Roux.

Oscar had done his 6-7 days of cross examination. Said he and Reeva had a loving relationship. Nel said he was lying. Oscar said they got on really well shared great times etc etc. Nel was having none of it.

Big debate about the inside out jeans. Nel said she was in a rush taking them off. Said she and Oscar had a fight, she never leaves clothes like that etc etc

Then, in a quick 45seconds or so:

Barry Roux: Mr Pistorious can you tell me what you see in this picture?
OP: Reeva's jeans m'lady.
Barry Roux: and what do you observe about then?
OP: they're not inside out m'lady. They're outside out.

And Mr Pistorious, can you read to me what is written in this card, the one Reeva had left to to open on Valentines Day?
OP: roses are red violets are blue, today is a great day to tell you I love you.

BOOM.
Roux injects that tiny element of doubt into the 6-7 days that Nel spent cross examining him.

Big deal. The way I look at it Nel had him up for days on end dealing mostly successfully with hundreds of points . Roux could come back and spend as long as he wanted righting any wrongs. What did he do? Spend nine lousy minutes going back over a minor point and reading a card that really proved very little. What's written on a Valentine card is hardly indicative of the true state of a relationship .

Ihatecuddles · 18-04-2014 5:08pm

desbrook wrote: »

Slightly off topic but do you wash your hands?

Yep, I do it every night at around 2am. I'm usually up on my phone, get up and go to the toilet with no lights on!

Don't find it strange at all.

AudreyHepburn · 25-04-2014 12:54pm

desbrook wrote: »

Big deal. The way I look at it Nel had him up for days on end dealing mostly successfully with hundreds of points . Roux could come back and spend as long as he wanted righting any wrongs. What did he do? Spend nine lousy minutes going back over a minor point and reading a card that really proved very little. What's written on a Valentine card is hardly indicative of the true state of a relationship .

No more than is a text yet a lot of posters here are willing to pronounce him guilty based of Reeva's "I'm afraid of you" text.

Why should the card above be any less of an indication than that?

AudreyHepburn · 25-04-2014 12:57pm

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-27114859

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/oscar-pistorius-trial-athletes-family-denies-he-took-acting-lessons-before-taking-stand-9273625.html

Though these might be of interest.....apparently some factions of the press think Pistorius took acting lessons before he took the stand.

Not sure if I'd believe it tbh.

Tin Foil Hat · 25-04-2014 1:13pm

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

No more than is a text yet a lot of posters here are willing to pronounce him guilty based of Reeva's "I'm afraid of you" text.

Why should the card above be any less of an indication than that?

Cheesy lovey dovey nonsense is par for the course on a valentine card.
"I'm afraid of you" on a text is hardly normal, especially when followed by a dead body.

Red Pepper · 25-04-2014 1:18pm

Tin Foil Hat wrote: »

Cheesy lovey dovey nonsense is par for the course on a valentine card.
"I'm afraid of you" on a text is hardly normal, especially when followed by a dead body.

AudreyHepburn · 25-04-2014 1:26pm

Tin Foil Hat wrote: »

Cheesy lovey dovey nonsense is par for the course on a valentine card.
"I'm afraid of you" on a text is hardly normal, especially when followed by a dead body.

Surely not if Reeva was as afraid of Pistorius as people seem to want to believe she was.

But this is exactly my point, texts, cards, emails etc are notoriously difficult to read in terms of the intent behind them.

You just can't convict some-one based on what are really just words on a screen/piece of paper.

She may well have been scared of him. Or she could have sent the text in a fit of anger or upset after and argument then regretted it the next day.

She may just have been being sappy or she may genuinely been in love with him and chosen Valentines Day to tell him.

It's simply to hard to be certain.

Hande hoche! · 25-04-2014 1:27pm

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-27114859

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/oscar-pistorius-trial-athletes-family-denies-he-took-acting-lessons-before-taking-stand-9273625.html

Though these might be of interest.....apparently some factions of the press think Pistorius took acting lessons before he took the stand.

Not sure if I'd believe it tbh.

There's an opinion piece by one of the Lawyers who represented Zimmerman, it's an interesting read http://edition.cnn.com/2014/04/23/opinion/omara-pistorius-acting/index.html?hpt=hp_t5

Tin Foil Hat · 25-04-2014 1:40pm

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Surely not if Reeva was as afraid of Pistorius as people seem to want to believe she was.

But this is exactly my point, texts, cards, emails etc are notoriously difficult to read in terms of the intent behind them.

You just can't convict some-one based on what are really just words on a screen/piece of paper.

She may well have been scared of him. Or she could have sent the text in a fit of anger or upset after and argument then regretted it the next day.

She may just have been being sappy or she may genuinely been in love with him and chosen Valentines Day to tell him.

It's simply to hard to be certain.

Audrey, he shot her through a door. Four times. Nobody is convicting him solely based on a text. He killed her and his excuse for doing so is laughable.

Tigger · 25-04-2014 1:40pm

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Surely not if Reeva was as afraid of Pistorius as people seem to want to believe she was.

But this is exactly my point, texts, cards, emails etc are notoriously difficult to read in terms of the intent behind them.

You just can't convict some-one based on what are really just words on a screen/piece of paper.

She may well have been scared of him. Or she could have sent the text in a fit of anger or upset after and argument then regretted it the next day.

She may just have been being sappy or she may genuinely been in love with him and chosen Valentines Day to tell him.

It's simply to hard to be certain.

yes but then he shot her in the head with black tallon bullets that make things explode

robinph · 25-04-2014 1:53pm

Mr Freeze wrote: »

I think so, on all charges.

Illegal possession of ammunition - guilty *
Discharging firearms in public - restaurant - guilty
Discharging firearms in public - car - 50/50 **
Culpable homicide - guilty
Pre-meditated murder - not guilty

* I don't recall then being able to prove the ammo was his and not the fathers, so he is guilty due to not understanding the law about who could hold the ammo.
** Could go either way depending on the mood of the judge. Not really anything to suggest the incident actually happened other than from ex-girlfriend, so not enough really to prove guilt. Surprised they didn't come up with something about the separate stop by the police where he left the gun unattended though, could have been another minor charge from that to add to the list.

He'll get 15 years for the ammo and the culpable homicide.

robinph · 25-04-2014 2:04pm

Tigger wrote: »

yes but then he shot her in the head with black tallon bullets that make things explode

The brand of bullets and what they do are irrelevant as far as determining his guilt for pre-meditated murder, they are just the type that was already loaded in the gun. The fact that he picked up a gun rather than turning on a light or shouting directly to Reeva is relevant information.

By going on about the type of bullet and what they do to melons/ zombies is bringing emotion into the judgement. The only important bit about the gun is that it was a gun and was loaded. Guns are designed to kill, if they kill by exploding then that really doesn't matter for this charge.

Tigger · 25-04-2014 2:14pm

robinph wrote: »

The brand of bullets and what they do are irrelevant as far as determining his guilt for pre-meditated murder, they are just the type that was already loaded in the gun. The fact that he picked up a gun rather than turning on a light or shouting directly to Reeva is relevant information.

By going on about the type of bullet and what they do to melons/ zombies is bringing emotion into the judgement. The only important bit about the gun is that it was a gun and was loaded. Guns are designed to kill, if they kill by exploding then that really doesn't matter for this charge.

no: guns are designed to shoot bullets
some bullets are designed to stop to hit targets or to maim
black tallons are designed to kill

desbrook · 25-04-2014 8:51pm

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

No more than is a text yet a lot of posters here are willing to pronounce him guilty based of Reeva's "I'm afraid of you" text.

Why should the card above be any less of an indication than that?

What you write on a Valentine is more aspirational than factual. It's hardly "warts and all " is it?

desbrook · 25-04-2014 8:58pm

Tigger wrote: »

no: guns are designed to shoot bullets
some bullets are designed to stop to hit targets or to maim
black tallons are designed to kill

Agreed. Premediation is one thing (25 years) but in order to get a "plain " murder conviction they need to prove that a "reasonable person " in his position knew he was likely to kill the person he shot. The prosecution have demonstrated OP had vast gun knowledge therefore if he knowingly fired the gun at all especially loaded with those bullets he must have known it was likely he would kill.
This is the reason OP has abandoned his "I thought I was shooting a burglar" defence. It wouldn't save him from the murder charge.

Paddy Cow · 26-04-2014 6:06pm

Can anyone tell me why he addresses the men as m'Lady? Is it because the judge is a lady?

sopretty · 26-04-2014 6:08pm

Paddy Cow wrote: »

Can anyone tell me why he addresses the men as m'Lady? Is it because the judge is a lady?

Yes, it seems that everyone is addressing the judge at all times. I'd get fierce confused lol and say 'yes sir' or something. Hard to keep saying m'lady when you're being questioned by two men!

robinph · 26-04-2014 6:14pm

desbrook wrote: »

Agreed. Premediation is one thing (25 years) but in order to get a "plain " murder conviction they need to prove that a "reasonable person " in his position knew he was likely to kill the person he shot. The prosecution have demonstrated OP had vast gun knowledge if he knowingly fired the gun at all especially loaded with those bullets he must have known it was likely he would kill.
This is the reason OP has abandoned his "I thought I was shooting a burglar" defence. It wouldn't save him from the murder charge.

Forgot about the variations on the murder charge they have actually.
Culpable homicide - guilty
Murder - guilty
Pre meditated murder - not guilty

He's not doing the courts opinion of himself any good with the rubbish about not intending to shoot at the person behind the door and the gun going off accidentally, but I guess he's just been told that there is no chance of the premeditated charge sticking so there is nothing to lose by following the deny everything Baldrick stance of defence.

sopretty · 26-04-2014 6:20pm

I actually don't think it was premeditated murder. I do believe it was murder however.

gramar · 26-04-2014 7:40pm

robinph wrote: »

Forgot about the variations on the murder charge they have actually.
Culpable homicide - guilty
Murder - guilty
Pre meditated murder - not guilty

He's not doing the courts opinion of himself any good with the rubbish about not intending to shoot at the person behind the door and the gun going off accidentally, but I guess he's just been told that there is no chance of the premeditated charge sticking so there is nothing to lose by following the deny everything Baldrick stance of defence.

4 very accurate and lethal shots for a man who didn't mean to pull the trigger.

sopretty · 26-04-2014 7:42pm

gramar wrote: »

4 very accurate and lethal shots for a man who didn't mean to pull the trigger.

He accidentally pulled the trigger 4 times out of fear ya know m'lady.

Gheebag · 26-04-2014 7:45pm

sopretty wrote: »

I actually don't think it was premeditated murder. I do believe it was murder however.

Miss know it all

Tin Foil Hat · 26-04-2014 8:02pm

robinph wrote: »

Forgot about the variations on the murder charge they have actually.
Culpable homicide - guilty
Murder - guilty
Pre meditated murder - not guilty

He's not doing the courts opinion of himself any good with the rubbish about not intending to shoot at the person behind the door and the gun going off accidentally, but I guess he's just been told that there is no chance of the premeditated charge sticking so there is nothing to lose by following the deny everything Baldrick stance of defence.

I'm not sure where you're getting this from. There's every likelihood he'll be found guilty of premeditated murder.

sopretty · 26-04-2014 8:05pm

Tin Foil Hat wrote: »

I'm not sure where you're getting this from. There's every likelihood he'll be found guilty of premeditated murder.

I don't think it was premeditated. I think they had an argument and he murdered her. He hadn't planned it though in my opinion.

Tin Foil Hat · 26-04-2014 8:22pm

sopretty wrote: »

I don't think it was premeditated. I think they had an argument and he murdered her. He hadn't planned it though in my opinion.

He doesn't need to have planned it months in advance for it to be considered premeditated. A few moments will do. If he decided follow Reeva down the passageway and shoot her four times through the bathroom door, then he is guilty of premeditated murder.

Dubl07 · 26-04-2014 8:29pm

sopretty wrote: »

I don't think it was premeditated. I think they had an argument and he murdered her. He hadn't planned it though in my opinion.

If he picked up his gun during a screaming row and followed her then shot at her four times with hollow-point bullets, he fully intended to extinguish her life.

sopretty · 26-04-2014 9:26pm

Dubl07 wrote: »

If he picked up his gun during a screaming row and followed her then shot at her four times with hollow-point bullets, he fully intended to extinguish her life.

Which would make it murder. Not pre-meditated murder.

AlwaysAnyTime · 26-04-2014 9:35pm

I never understood generally why premeditated murder carries tougher sentencing than murder. It's like you are getting punished for being smart about it and putting the extra effort into planning. Whereas if some drunk idiot randomly punches me on a night out and I die, then it's very unlikely he will get a premeditated murder charge - despite the recklessness and lack of foresight involved. Why do we reward people for being reckless and stupid - shouldn't these get harsher punishment? Or is it just because it's that bit more difficult to catch premeditated murderers.

Tin Foil Hat · 26-04-2014 9:36pm

sopretty wrote: »

Which would make it murder. Not pre-meditated murder.

Nope! Under South African law he would be guilty of premeditated murder. He only needs to premeditate it for a few seconds.

sopretty · 26-04-2014 9:40pm

Tin Foil Hat wrote: »

Nope! Under South African law he would be guilty of premeditated murder. He only needs to premeditate it for a few seconds.

Where did you read that?

Tin Foil Hat · 26-04-2014 9:42pm

sopretty wrote: »

Where did you read that?

I can't remember. I think it was on the radio at some point.

sopretty · 26-04-2014 10:26pm

Tin Foil Hat wrote: »

I can't remember. I think it was on the radio at some point.

I heard different. Pre-meditated involves planning. Murder is murder without pre-meditation.

sopretty · 26-04-2014 10:29pm

Put it this way.

A: I plan for a week, how to murder my husband.
B: My husband pisses me off and I shoot him.
C: I shoot my husband in self defence.

I claim that I accidentally shot my husband through the bathroom door by accident and I didn't pull the trigger at all really, though it appears I fired 4 shots......... That's what they now call an Oscar Pistorius.

XxMCRxBabyxX · 26-04-2014 10:34pm

Pre-meditated doesn't have to mean that you planned ages in advance to kill. It can count right up to seconds before the death such as if OP picked up the gun with the aim of shooting Reeva dead. If he had only aimed to injure Reeva but but killed her instead then it would be culpable homicide.

http://www.regulatorylawsa.com/2014/04/the-difference-between-murder-and.html?m=1

robinph · 27-04-2014 12:22am

But they cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt that he knew it was Reeva behind the door or that their relationship was anything other than a happy one.

There is far less proof needed for the claim that he intended to kill / seriously disable the person behind the door. Other than he is just following the deny everything stance I don't believe that he would really dispute that either. He did mean to shoot the person behind the door. That meets the murder charge.

It cannot be proven that he knew who was behind the door, so the premeditated charge just won't stick.

Tin Foil Hat · 27-04-2014 12:22am

sopretty wrote: »

I heard different. Pre-meditated involves planning. Murder is murder without pre-meditation.

And he planned to follow her down the corridor. And he planned to shoot her through the door. Short term plans, maybe. But plans nonetheless.

Tin Foil Hat · 27-04-2014 12:43am

robinph wrote: »

But they cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt that he knew it was Reeva behind the door

On the contrary, they have proved exactly that. OP's version of events (whichever version you choose, because it changes) is ludicrous. All of his versions are ludicrous. The only plausible version of events is that he knew he was shooting at Reeva Steenkamp.

Muff Richardson · 27-04-2014 12:25pm

robinph wrote: »

But they cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt that he knew it was Reeva behind the door or that their relationship was anything other than a happy one.

There is far less proof needed for the claim that he intended to kill / seriously disable the person behind the door. Other than he is just following the deny everything stance I don't believe that he would really dispute that either. He did mean to shoot the person behind the door. That meets the murder charge.

It cannot be proven that he knew who was behind the door, so the premeditated charge just won't stick.

getting sick of this rubbish from people on here that know as much as i do about the law, more to the point, south african law, which is sweet f*ck all to be honest. this line of "they cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt blah blah blah" seem to think it takes a live audience with a video recording of the murder or for Judge massaipa or whatever her name is to have been sitting on the jacks taking a dump looking at the whole thing in order to prove what happened...I think it's been proven beyond any reasonable doubt quite concisely that he murdered her, not only that I think the guy is humiliating himself at the same time.

Blade Runner becomes Blade Gunner **Mod Warning Read OP""

Comments