Are you saying you do not think he shot that fast? I would rather believe you since you have experience in shooting. this trial is so scary because there are too many unanswered questions. I do not see how they are going to find him guilty on murder.Originally Posted by jrmonroe
This is true, and even in this thread we've seen how people are willing to draw conclusions unsupported by fact, such as, "I would have screamed, so she must have screamed" or "he was obviously shooting to kill as he shot blindly through the door" or "his courtroom theatrics are obnoxious, so he must be guilty of murder." However, judges are not necessarily better, such as this guy, who was taking kickbacks to send kids to detention facilities.
Pa. Judge Sentenced To 28 Years In Massive Juvenile Justice Bribery Scandal : The Two-Way : NPR
For me, it was an eye-opening experience to follow the George Zimmerman trial, and watch decisions by prosecutors made based on political pressure, and fraudulent indictment handed down, with no repercussions from the judicial system.
If I were Oscar I would be pretty damned glad that the majority of you are not on the jury. (Although this post follows Harold's, it is not in response to Harold's post. Harold seems to be taking a similar position to me here. i.e. "You don't frigging know what you are talking about.")
You have GOT to be kidding me....?CT, I am going with your take for the moment. I think this guys was going to kill her, period. I think there is a plot, and I think it has to do with the company that make the blades for his running. Call me what you will.
I really do not know what this guy did, and how it will turn out. Based on the story I hear, there are too many discrepancies for my brain to comprehend, that is why I have left the story and looked for another motive for anyone killing anyone the way we are hearing it. I cannot find one to match so I made one up to suite the way it appears to me, all about gain, that is all. It is not based on anything else. I cannot give this guy a verdict, because I have no clue what was going on in his mind. I do know though, that different things go on in peoples mind especially when they are handicapped.You have GOT to be kidding me....?CT, I am going with your take for the moment. I think this guys was going to kill her, period. I think there is a plot, and I think it has to do with the company that make the blades for his running. Call me what you will.
Is that spoken from a personal point of view? It was emphasized at the start of the defense side of the trial, how the troubles of being handicapped made him vulnerable, and hence more defensive.I really do not know what this guy did, and how it will turn out. Based on the story I hear, there are too many discrepancies for my brain to comprehend, that is why I have left the story and looked for another motive for anyone killing anyone the way we are hearing it. I cannot find one to match so I made one up to suite the way it appears to me, all about gain, that is all. It is not based on anything else. I cannot give this guy a verdict, because I have no clue what was going on in his mind. I do know though, that different things go on in peoples mind especially when they are handicapped.You have GOT to be kidding me....?CT, I am going with your take for the moment. I think this guys was going to kill her, period. I think there is a plot, and I think it has to do with the company that make the blades for his running. Call me what you will.
This then makes the scenario he has given plausible, but harder for us to understand not being in his shoes.
Last edited by Robittybob1; April 18th, 2014 at 11:53 AM.
Although I'm fairly knowledgeable of American law, I don't know anything about Roman-Dutch law. It seems OP choose a panel of judges to hear his case instead of a jury because it is so emotional/controversial. But judges can also rule severely against OP because his claims are so unrealistic. In the end, defendants and prosecutors alike will lie (even with "expert" witnesses), and the adjudicators must choose who is more and less believable.
Which facts in the case do you think are better explained by a murder conspiracy involving the manufacturer of prosthetic devices, than they are explained by the arguments of the prosecution or the defense attorneys?
Maybe you missed the part where Kalster said they don't have a jury system in South Africa.
I cannot be in this mans shoes, they do not fit me, that makes everything I say irrelevant. What I said is based on my take on the whole affair. I am answering the questions that's entering my biased mind.Is that spoken from a personal point of view? It was emphasized at the start of the defense side of the trial, how the troubles of being handicapped made him vulnerable, and hence more defensive.I really do not know what this guy did, and how it will turn out. Based on the story I hear, there are too many discrepancies for my brain to comprehend, that is why I have left the story and looked for another motive for anyone killing anyone the way we are hearing it. I cannot find one to match so I made one up to suite the way it appears to me, all about gain, that is all. It is not based on anything else. I cannot give this guy a verdict, because I have no clue what was going on in his mind. I do know though, that different things go on in peoples mind especially when they are handicapped.You have GOT to be kidding me....?CT, I am going with your take for the moment. I think this guys was going to kill her, period. I think there is a plot, and I think it has to do with the company that make the blades for his running. Call me what you will.
This then makes the scenario he has given plausible, but harder for us to understand not being in his shoes.
I have taken this some way out of context in terms of reason for the crime as I am seeing it. There are no arguments for a conspiracy, there are however arguments that something is not right. Motive can come from any quarters, I am shooting kind of off target. Although at times somethings can sound very far fetched, they can also be considered since especially now a days where money is the name of the game.Which facts in the case do you think are better explained by a murder conspiracy involving the manufacturer of prosthetic devices, than they are explained by the arguments of the prosecution or the defense attorneys?
Maybe you missed the part where Kalster said they don't have a jury system in South Africa.
Personally, I never really understood why the jury system was a good idea. Like you say, they aren't legal experts and just average people. Average people are stupid, to put it bluntly.
I'm afraid I actually agree with this statement. I don't mean to ''slam'' America neither, but America does harbor a lot of stupid people. You're life is literally in the hands of often uneducated white people. (No I am not black, but often you are fucked if you are).
So most judges are white in America BUT juries can be made up of blacks and whites if the attorneys want them. So which then is better to have judging you?I'm afraid I actually agree with this statement. I don't mean to ''slam'' America neither, but America does harbor a lot of stupid people. You're life is literally in the hands of often uneducated white people. (No I am not black, but often you are fucked if you are).
All I can say to this is, good question.
BUMP!!! And the verdict is ...
I say he's at least guilty of manslaughter and — if the judge has any brains (and she has) — most likely murder.
... but we will need to wait another month.
So not guilty of murder by legal intent, sounds like guilty of culpable homicide but we need the rest of the judgement in the morning.
Could also get manslaughter if they have that charge there.
Apparently it is very unusual for the judge to have adjourned at that point (resuming tomorrow) in the proceedings. I read that it might be down to Pistorius' emotional state.
It seems like an awful lot of extra expense if that is it.
Come on! One more day after what we've already had. Insignificant.
Well I suppose the court system is not paying for the journalists' expenses , which is what I was mainly thinking about.
I also get that justice shouldn't be penny pinching.
Well I suppose the court system is not paying for the journalists' expenses , which is what I was mainly thinking about.
I also get that justice shouldn't be penny pinching.
Really? you're thinking about journalists expences, surely they must be lapping this up. Think of all the news news columns they must be filling, drawing out the suspence. This whole trial has probably more than paid for their yearly wages, how many newspapers and tv ad slots will have been sold off the back off this trial and it's recieving global coverage surely a major coup for any of the journalists involved.
Really what should be about justice for the people and families involved is being used as money making, headline grabbing tool for the entire media circus, and surely the last thing they should or would be worried about is paying for their reporters hotel and food bills, geez!
I was conceding the point to John .I wasn't trying to be argumentative over what is , as you might agree a very minor point in the overall case.
Not guilty of murder, guilty of culpable homicide. I agree with the judge's verdict. I don't think there was enough evidence to prove intent. I think he will get a pretty stiff sentence.
Home detention?
I think the sentence will be a pretty good indicator of how much of his defence the Judge actually believes was true and not made up to avoid being convicted of murder. I also think this case could have implications for other murder trials worldwide, depending ho the sentencing goes, with regard to defences against mens rea, even for any non strict liability crimes for that matter.
Whatever story a defendant chooses to use form now on without suffient evidence to refute will cause some major headaches for prosecutors, and this will certainly no doubt encourage defences to come up with some more elaborate stories, perhaps even more so when juries are involved and sticking ridgidly to the concept of reasonable doubt.
I don't think it will and it shouldn't. He's been acquitted of murder and the sentence should reflect his degree of guilt for the negligence of which he was convicted.
I don't think it's any different than it's always been. When the standard is proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, that means a lot of guilty people will go free. Nothing new here.I also think this case could have implications for other murder trials worldwide, depending ho the sentencing goes, with regard to defences against mens rea, even for any non strict liability crimes for that matter.
Whatever story a defendant chooses to use form now on without suffient evidence to refute will cause some major headaches for prosecutors, and this will certainly no doubt encourage defences to come up with some more elaborate stories, perhaps even more so when juries are involved and sticking ridgidly to the concept of reasonable doubt.
The Week further reported that the double amputee could face up to 15 years in jail on the culpable homicide charge. His sentence is due to serve in October.
June, the mother of the dead 29-year-old bikini model, was not convinced of the verdict.
"Justice was not served. I just don't feel this is the right sentence," the grieving mother told the news network NBC. "I won't believe his story and that's the difference."
"I don't care what happens to Oscar," she added. "It's not going to change anything because my daughter is never coming back. He's still living and breathing and she's gone ... forever."
https://www.google.com/search?q=Osca...w&ved=0CB0QqAI
| « Human and organ trafficing from Eastern Europe and other countries | Sex Slave trade in the US » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
28Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
