Notices
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 126
Like Tree28Likes

Thread: Oscar Pistorius trial

  1. #1 Oscar Pistorius trial 
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,789
    Oscar Pistorius trial should ask why , when he heard his wifes voice coming from the bathroom, didn't he stop shooting into the bathroom? It would seem to anyone that has any common sense that if they were being fired at they would be screaming to let whoever is shooting them know they are where they are. Why this question was not asked yet I really don't understand for that would make everyone aware that he knew his wife was in the bathroom and not a "intruder". Just a thought on this trial, what do you think?


    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,148
    Very credible, I get break-ins with intruders going for the bathroom to do their dirty deed all the time.


    Pongo likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    How do you know he heard her voice coming from the bathroom?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,789
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    How do you know he heard her voice coming from the bathroom?
    Common sense will tell us that if we were a loved one and were being fired upon we would be screaming for them to stop.
    Stargate likes this.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    There were screams during the shooting (according to witnesses), but Pistorius claims it was him and that he "screams like a girl".
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    Common sense will tell us that if we were a loved one and were being fired upon we would be screaming for them to stop.
    Firstly, there is no such thing as common sense.
    Secondly, anything that "common sense" tells us is usually wrong, or so general that all exceptions are ignored.
    Thirdly, "common sense" tells me that I would clam up in a state of shock.
    So, fourthly, you seem to be mistaken.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    She was his girrlfriend. Also, one of the shots were in the head and was severe enough that she would not have been able to scream.

    I think the guy was parenoid and killed her in a state of utter panic. You don't know what true panic means until you have experienced it.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,789
    [QUOTE=John Galt;549977]
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    Common sense will tell us that if we were a loved one and were being fired upon we would be screaming for them to stop.
    Firstly, there is no such thing as common sense.

    That is your OPINION for many humans think there is such a thing.


    Secondly, anything that "common sense" tells us is usually wrong, or so general that all exceptions are ignored.

    In my past experiences working and just living I've found that is does work for me as well as my EX so at least I can talk from personel experiances but perhaps you never had any so wouldn't realize what it was.

    Thirdly, "common sense" tells me that I would clam up in a state of shock.

    That's you and not his wife and since we were not there we really do not know anything for certain do we? That is why I started this thread to give thought as to why he killed his wife other than an intruder broke in and was hiding in the bathroom with the door locked. Since MOST intruders are looking for valuables what were the valuables inside of a bathroom?


    So, fourthly, you seem to be mistaken.

    No, I only was giving my OPINION about this trial and I can always have one about most things that happen. When you do not know what happened how can you state that I am mistaken because it is only your opinion that we see that only you have.
    Pongo likes this.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    I think there's a good chance Oscar killed her in a fit of jealous rage, but the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt. I'm not sure if that has been reached. Eyewitness or earwitness testimony can be unreliable. People have been known to vividly recall things that never happened.

    After the first shot or two, indoors with no hearing protection, Oscars ears would be ringing. Would he accurately identify who was screaming and where it was coming from?

    Sometimes the things people do under stress are not the same things they would do upon calm reflection.

    On the other hand, there seems to be some question about whether Oscar changed his story, or lied about the events of the evening. If he did that, it does not bode well for his credibility.
    adelady likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,789
    Why was the intruder in the bathroom? There's no valuables there so that was strange that he thought that an intruder went to the bathroom, for what?
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    Why was the intruder in the bathroom?
    Maybe that was the entry point.

    Has any explanation been given for why he didn't think it was his girlfriend in the toilet?
    Pongo likes this.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Bachelors Degree One beer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    442
    I thought he sounded pretty convincing in court today, and court was adjourned because he broke down and could not speak after recounting the events in his flat - he woke up confused and thought he heard an intruder in his bathroom. he mentions a ladder - presumably up to the bathroom window?


    OB
    Last edited by One beer; April 8th, 2014 at 01:01 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,789
    But the bathrooms window was not damaged.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Masters Degree LuciDreaming's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Cambridgeshire
    Posts
    660
    None of it sounds credible - especially coupled with the texts going between them before the killing. But......who really knows what he would or wouldnt have done or whether his reactions were or weren't credible. Panic attacks dont lend themselves to rational thinking and behaviour and its very easy to sit in judgement when you are calmly sitting at home safe and sound and able to think things through.

    One things for sure - there is only one person who really knows what happened that night - everyone else is just speculating.
    "And we should consider every day lost on which we have not danced at least once. And we should call every truth false which was not accompanied by at least one laugh" Nietzsche.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,789
    Of course but to see him get off scott free would not be a very good thing.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    Of course but to see him get off scott free would not be a very good thing.
    Even if it was an accident?

    He should get some trouble for his weapon violations I would think though.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,789
    I've never thought it was an "accident".
    Pongo likes this.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    But the bathrooms window was not damaged.
    What does that have to do with anything?

    You asked why an intruder would be in the bathroom.
    If they came in through the bathroom window, then they would be in the bathroom.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Professor jrmonroe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,444
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    Oscar Pistorius trial
    On Oscar's fits of crying and/or vomiting, I think he deserves ... an Oscar! To me, it's like watching a so-called "magician" perform. Every heavy sigh, quivering lip, sob, and puke occurring on cue and with perfect effect to draw the audience's attention away from what's really important. Sorry, but, he's seen all the photos before with his lawyer — and more than once. Please don't tell me that he puked every time. As I recall, he wasn't found puking while cradling her in his arms. Hmmm. I'm a little surprised he hasn't fainted, but, who knows, the trial ain't over yet. Along with an Oscar, I think he also deserves a murder conviction — and if they can give him aggravated murder due to his lousy courtroom performance, all the better.
    Grief is the price we pay for love. (CM Parkes) Our postillion has been struck by lightning. (Unknown) War is always the choice of the chosen who will not have to fight. (Bono) The years tell much what the days never knew. (RW Emerson) Reality is not always probable, or likely. (JL Borges)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,789
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    But the bathrooms window was not damaged.
    What does that have to do with anything?

    You asked why an intruder would be in the bathroom.
    If they came in through the bathroom window, then they would be in the bathroom.
    The window was at a high elevation and wasn't opened or broken so then how did the "intruder" get into the bathroom if there was no apparent way to do so or that was found through the window there?
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    But the bathrooms window was not damaged.
    What does that have to do with anything?

    You asked why an intruder would be in the bathroom.
    If they came in through the bathroom window, then they would be in the bathroom.
    The window was at a high elevation and wasn't opened or broken so then how did the "intruder" get into the bathroom if there was no apparent way to do so or that was found through the window there?
    What does that have to do with anything?

    You asked why an intruder would be in the bathroom.
    If they came in through the bathroom window, then they would be in the bathroom.

    Which part of that is not clear?
    Are you claiming that it is impossible for anyone to enter the bathroom via the bathroom window?
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,789
    Are you claiming that it is impossible for anyone to enter the bathroom via the bathroom window?
    That's what I've been trying to get you to understand. The window opened outward and was not open when the police arrived. That window wasn't a way the "intruder" could get in without breaking it apart to get it open enough to climb inside.
    Last edited by cosmictraveler; April 9th, 2014 at 01:42 PM.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    The window opend outward and was not open when the police arrived.
    Irrelevant, since Oscar shot through the closed door, so he obviously couldn't have seen whether the window was open or closed.
    RedPanda likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24 I agree 
    Forum Freshman Pongo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Scotland UK
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by One beer View Post
    I thought he sounded pretty convincing in court today, and court was adjourned because he broke down and could not speak after recounting the events in his flat - he woke up confused and thought he heard an intruder in his bathroom. he mentions a ladder - presumably up to the bathroom window?


    OB
    He is convincing me also by breaking down in court that he is in a state of shock. But lots of people do terrible things in the heat of the moment and then regret it afterwards. He may be convincing in court but remember its a life sentence he is facing.
    My opinion --- they had an argument and she stormed off to the toilet -- he reacted and shot the door 4 times. Realising what he has done he made up this defence.
    If I woke up in my bed and heard someone in the bathroom I would look for my wife's slumbering body next to me in bed first and not even if I had a gun put four bullets into the toilet door.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,789
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    The window opend outward and was not open when the police arrived.
    Irrelevant, since Oscar shot through the closed door, so he obviously couldn't have seen whether the window was open or closed.
    Never thought about that, thanks.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Pongo View Post
    If I woke up in my bed and heard someone in the bathroom I would look for my wife's slumbering body next to me in bed first...
    When I put myself in his place, I find his reaction weird.
    I find it strange that his first thoughts didn't involve his wife at all - either checking she was ok (next to him in the bed) or checking if it was her in the bathroom.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Professor river_rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    1,497
    Just a couple of corrections:
    1. Reeva was his girlfriend not his wife
    2. He didn't wake up to a noise in the bathroom, according to his account he was moving fans into the room when he heard a noise in the bathroom
    As is often the case with technical subjects we are presented with an unfortunate choice: an explanation that is accurate but incomprehensible, or comprehensible but wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by river_rat View Post
    Just a couple of corrections:
    1. Reeva was his girlfriend not his wife
    Ah yes. I stand corrected.

    Quote Originally Posted by river_rat View Post
    2. He didn't wake up to a noise in the bathroom, according to his account he was moving fans into the room when he heard a noise in the bathroom
    Can you think of a reason why he didn't ask himself "Is that my girlfriend in the toilet?"

    "The other evening, I was watching TV and I heard a sound coming from the kitchen.
    So I grabbed my gun and started shooting through the kitchen door.
    But it turned out that my GF was making a sandwich."
    How would that make any sense?
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Freshman Pongo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Scotland UK
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by river_rat View Post
    Just a couple of corrections:
    1. Reeva was his girlfriend not his wife
    2. He didn't wake up to a noise in the bathroom, according to his account he was moving fans into the room when he heard a noise in the bathroom
    hi,
    1. I was referring to my wife in my previous post not Pistorius's.
    2. this makes his explanation sound even worse.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Quote Originally Posted by Pongo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by One beer View Post
    I thought he sounded pretty convincing in court today, and court was adjourned because he broke down and could not speak after recounting the events in his flat - he woke up confused and thought he heard an intruder in his bathroom. he mentions a ladder - presumably up to the bathroom window?


    OB
    He is convincing me also by breaking down in court that he is in a state of shock. But lots of people do terrible things in the heat of the moment and then regret it afterwards. He may be convincing in court but remember its a life sentence he is facing.
    My opinion --- they had an argument and she stormed off to the toilet -- he reacted and shot the door 4 times. Realising what he has done he made up this defence.
    If I woke up in my bed and heard someone in the bathroom I would look for my wife's slumbering body next to me in bed first and not even if I had a gun put four bullets into the toilet door.
    That is you, not him.

    He has testified to and it was reasonably well known that he was paranoid of crime. He also said that he woke up confused. I personally have woken up quite a few times where it took me several minutes to come to my senses, even after moving around, with even some of the dream I was having still milling through my brain.

    He was also a well known gun toter. I can easily imagine him finding security in his weapons and psychologically having them in the back of his mind the whole time as the go-to defence if he is threatened.

    I am not trying to advocate for him, I don't really know what happened, but I find it hard to imagine why people are so quick to judge him already. He might not have been the best of people at times, but he deserves due consideration. To me a paranoid, mentally fragile individual who had woken up in a confused state would be more than capable of doing what he did by accident. If so, at least he should be reprimanded about his illegal weapons, perhaps be found guilty of involuntary manslaughter and the sentence should be suspended, with some mandatory rehabilitation included.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Freshman Pongo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Scotland UK
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Pongo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by One beer View Post
    I thought he sounded pretty convincing in court today, and court was adjourned because he broke down and could not speak after recounting the events in his flat - he woke up confused and thought he heard an intruder in his bathroom. he mentions a ladder - presumably up to the bathroom window?


    OB
    He is convincing me also by breaking down in court that he is in a state of shock. But lots of people do terrible things in the heat of the moment and then regret it afterwards. He may be convincing in court but remember its a life sentence he is facing.
    My opinion --- they had an argument and she stormed off to the toilet -- he reacted and shot the door 4 times. Realising what he has done he made up this defence.
    If I woke up in my bed and heard someone in the bathroom I would look for my wife's slumbering body next to me in bed first and not even if I had a gun put four bullets into the toilet door.
    That is you, not him.

    He has testified to and it was reasonably well known that he was paranoid of crime. He also said that he woke up confused. I personally have woken up quite a few times where it took me several minutes to come to my senses, even after moving around, with even some of the dream I was having still milling through my brain.

    He was also a well known gun toter. I can easily imagine him finding security in his weapons and psychologically having them in the back of his mind the whole time as the go-to defence if he is threatened.

    I am not trying to advocate for him, I don't really know what happened, but I find it hard to imagine why people are so quick to judge him already. He might not have been the best of people at times, but he deserves due consideration. To me a paranoid, mentally fragile individual who had woken up in a confused state would be more than capable of doing what he did by accident. If so, at least he should be reprimanded about his illegal weapons, perhaps be found guilty of involuntary manslaughter and the sentence should be suspended, with some mandatory rehabilitation included.
    'That is, you not him'. sorry this does not make any sense.

    I mention that this is my 'opinion' only and not a judgement. In a discussion forum I thought I could discuss my opinion-- yes or no?
    I awaken during the night also confused and dazed but I do not reach for a gun first. It has also been established at his trial that he was awake and alert when he fired off the weapon. I just find the defence preposterous but his peers and the judge will offer him justice I am sure, not me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Bachelors Degree One beer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    442
    Yeah, his defence is starting to sound very thin now. But who knows, that could be the expertise of the prosecutor - just as it might have been the skill of the defence that made me think otherwise a few days ago? I could barely listen to Mr Pistorius, but the Judge sits absolutely stony faced, not reacting to anything - even apparent extreme emotion. They are the experts, I am certainly not.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,789
    Why did'nt he take a lie detector test? That would bolster his position and give more creedance to his version of what happened.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    Why did'nt he take a lie detector test? That would bolster his position and give more creedance to his version of what happened.
    Because polygraph tests are not admissible in SA courts?
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,789
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    Why did'nt he take a lie detector test? That would bolster his position and give more creedance to his version of what happened.
    Because polygraph tests are not admissible in SA courts?
    But they can be admissable when the defendant allows it to be taken or at least that's what I thought. Since I'm in America I really don't know the laws about this sort of thing over there.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Quote Originally Posted by Pongo View Post

    'That is, you not him'. sorry this does not make any sense.
    I meant that extrapolating from yourself and judging whether he is lying or not from that does not necessarily give you good results.

    I mention that this is my 'opinion' only and not a judgement. In a discussion forum I thought I could discuss my opinion-- yes or no?
    Of course, I did not mean to imply otherwise. No offence was meant. I just want people to refrain from jumping to conclusions.

    I awaken during the night also confused and dazed but I do not reach for a gun first.
    This is what I mean. You might not do that, but it doesn't mean he might not have. As has been established, he was paranoid about violent crime (completely understandable in this country) and he used his guns to compensate for his mental fragility. Given those two things, and the fact that rationality goes out the door when you are in a state of panic, and, without knowing all the finer details, you have a plausible case for an accidental death.

    I just find the defence preposterous but his peers and the judge will offer him justice I am sure, not me.
    We don't have a jury system in South Africa, but yes, I hope the judge can make a rational rescission.
    stander-j likes this.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    But they can be admissable when the defendant allows it to be taken or at least that's what I thought. Since I'm in America I really don't know the laws about this sort of thing over there.
    I can't find anything with any detail on polygraphs in SA criminal courts.
    All I can find is statements saying that they are inadmissible, with no details of any exceptions.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Freshman Pongo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Scotland UK
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Pongo View Post

    'That is, you not him'. sorry this does not make any sense.
    I meant that extrapolating from yourself and judging whether he is lying or not from that does not necessarily give you good results.

    I mention that this is my 'opinion' only and not a judgement. In a discussion forum I thought I could discuss my opinion-- yes or no?
    Of course, I did not mean to imply otherwise. No offence was meant. I just want people to refrain from jumping to conclusions.

    I awaken during the night also confused and dazed but I do not reach for a gun first.
    This is what I mean. You might not do that, but it doesn't mean he might not have. As has been established, he was paranoid about violent crime (completely understandable in this country) and he used his guns to compensate for his mental fragility. Given those two things, and the fact that rationality goes out the door when you are in a state of panic, and, without knowing all the finer details, you have a plausible case for an accidental death.

    I just find the defence preposterous but his peers and the judge will offer him justice I am sure, not me.
    We don't have a jury system in South Africa, but yes, I hope the judge can make a rational rescission.
    Thanks, I assumed you had the same jury system as we in the UK and USA had - did not know that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Professor river_rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    1,497
    Quote Originally Posted by Pongo View Post
    Thanks, I assumed you had the same jury system as we in the UK and USA had - did not know that.
    Instead of a jury the judge can appoint amicii to aide in the determination of questions of fact - this trial has two amicii for example. Our legal system is based on Roman-Dutch law so its a bit strange when compared to the US and the UK.
    Last edited by river_rat; April 10th, 2014 at 04:03 PM. Reason: fixed spelling mistake
    cosmictraveler and KALSTER like this.
    As is often the case with technical subjects we are presented with an unfortunate choice: an explanation that is accurate but incomprehensible, or comprehensible but wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Freshman Pongo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Scotland UK
    Posts
    48
    thanks for clearing that up.

    on a slightly humorous note, we in the UK call our judges 'your honour' regardless of their sex.

    Following the trial on UK TV I see you refer to the judge as 'My Lady' what do you call a male judge 'Ma man' perhaps.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Oscar Pistorius wanted a new bathroom door but Reva, his girlfriend, was dead against it.
    Pongo, RedPanda and dan hunter like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,839
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    Common sense will tell us that if we were a loved one and were being fired upon we would be screaming for them to stop.
    Firstly, there is no such thing as common sense.
    Secondly, anything that "common sense" tells us is usually wrong, or so general that all exceptions are ignored.
    Thirdly, "common sense" tells me that I would clam up in a state of shock.
    So, fourthly, you seem to be mistaken.
    John, I think most people would do something in a similar way, maybe you do not want to call it common sense. If I was laying in bed with my girlfriend and I heard a sound anywhere, I would first seek the attention of my girlfriend. I think most people would do that, however, there are people who would act differently.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Professor jrmonroe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,444
    To catch on a few comments here and to add one of my own ...

    Here in the USA, courts do not accept polygraph test results; however, in such important cases, some defendants undergo polygraph tests basically to prove themselves to their own lawyers. Seriously.

    Here in the USA, courts adjudicate criminal cases using two methods: #1 – judge and jury (jury decides facts, judge decides law), and #2 – a panel of judges. A defendant can decide which method for the court to use; however, if I remember correctly, in a murder case, the defendant cannot decide against a jury trial. Defendants often opt for a panel of judges to try a case involving intense negative emotions that would improperly sway a jury.

    Also, coincidentally, in most or all USA jurisdictions, a defendant cannot plead guilty to murder at arraignment. When the media announces that the defendant has pleaded not guilty at arraignment, it's no surprise to anyone in the justice system as no real "choice" exists. If a defendant does plead guilty at arraignment, the judge will simply say he can't, and directs a not guilty plea entered on the defendant's behalf.

    And, oh Robbitybob1, how could you?

    My own comment:

    I haven't followed every single fact in the case, but I will opine that, what will cause his conviction — most likely of murder — is his ego; that is, his wholesale failure to actually apology and to actually admit his guilt. To say, "I want to apologize ..." is totally lame, and everyone knows it. To say, "I made a mistake" is also totally lame, especially when he also claims that his finger was not on trigger, and he won't admit to killing her. Anyone worth their salt in the justice system knows that letting that tremendous amount of ego walk free is a disaster waiting to happen (again).
    Grief is the price we pay for love. (CM Parkes) Our postillion has been struck by lightning. (Unknown) War is always the choice of the chosen who will not have to fight. (Bono) The years tell much what the days never knew. (RW Emerson) Reality is not always probable, or likely. (JL Borges)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by jrmonroe View Post
    Also, coincidentally, in most or all USA jurisdictions, a defendant cannot plead guilty to murder at arraignment.
    Where do you get this information? It certainly isn't all jurisdictions, as one may confirm with a bit of googling.

    Montana Bride Appeals Her Own Guilty Plea in Husband's Death - NBC News
    Guilty Plea: Man Admits to Murder | WNEP.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Professor jrmonroe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,444
    Ok, so, first the arrest, then the arraignment in court, and then it could go on from there. An arraignment is the official notification of a court case against a defendant. On most charges, a defendant can plead guilty at the arraignment, but on murder charges (I think, more specifically, and capital crimes and/or life sentences) the defendant is required to continue to pre-trial with production of documents and evidence and pre-trial activities, such as meeting with the prosecutor to work on a plea agreement. This actually protects the defendant.

    Of the examples you show, I can almost guarantee that they had negotiated their pleas after the arraignment because one pleaded guilty to second-degree murder and the other to third-degree murder. Unless the defendant is a police officer, the prosecutor will almost always charge a defendant with nothing less than first-degree murder. So, these two defendants were most likely arraigned for first-degree and then negotiated to plead guilty to a lesser and inclusive charge.
    Grief is the price we pay for love. (CM Parkes) Our postillion has been struck by lightning. (Unknown) War is always the choice of the chosen who will not have to fight. (Bono) The years tell much what the days never knew. (RW Emerson) Reality is not always probable, or likely. (JL Borges)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,809
    Does he go to bed with the blades on? If not then did he take the time to put them on & pick up a gun, all the while not noticing whether his gf was with him in the room?
    Stargate likes this.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Freshman Pongo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Scotland UK
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Oscar Pistorius wanted a new bathroom door but Reva, his girlfriend, was dead against it.
    doesn't take long for the jokes to be flushed out Ouch!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    Does he go to bed with the blades on? If not then did he take the time to put them on & pick up a gun, all the while not noticing whether his gf was with him in the room?
    He doesn't have to run a marathon! Why would he wear his blades to bed?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,789
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    Does he go to bed with the blades on? If not then did he take the time to put them on & pick up a gun, all the while not noticing whether his gf was with him in the room?
    1.40pm: The prosecution is asking Pistorius how it is possible that he did not see Steenkamp get out of bed to go to the toilet on the night of the shooting. Pistorius describes how he woke up, took two fans in from the balcony and shut the doors and curtains. Nel asks if it is not “strange” that he failed to see Steenkamp. “It was pitch black and it was behind me so it is not strange at all,” says Pistorius. He suggests that without his legs, he was also at a height where the fans were blowing near his face.
    https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...BTqzmGqT6axPsw
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Pongo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Oscar Pistorius wanted a new bathroom door but Reva, his girlfriend, was dead against it.
    doesn't take long for the jokes to be flushed out Ouch!!
    I hope you're not planning any future renovations!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,809
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    Does he go to bed with the blades on? If not then did he take the time to put them on & pick up a gun, all the while not noticing whether his gf was with him in the room?
    1.40pm: The prosecution is asking Pistorius how it is possible that he did not see Steenkamp get out of bed to go to the toilet on the night of the shooting. Pistorius describes how he woke up, took two fans in from the balcony and shut the doors and curtains. Nel asks if it is not “strange” that he failed to see Steenkamp. “It was pitch black and it was behind me so it is not strange at all,” says Pistorius. He suggests that without his legs, he was also at a height where the fans were blowing near his face.
    https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...BTqzmGqT6axPsw
    So he shot her with his blades off?
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    Does he go to bed with the blades on? If not then did he take the time to put them on & pick up a gun, all the while not noticing whether his gf was with him in the room?
    1.40pm: The prosecution is asking Pistorius how it is possible that he did not see Steenkamp get out of bed to go to the toilet on the night of the shooting. Pistorius describes how he woke up, took two fans in from the balcony and shut the doors and curtains. Nel asks if it is not “strange” that he failed to see Steenkamp. “It was pitch black and it was behind me so it is not strange at all,” says Pistorius. He suggests that without his legs, he was also at a height where the fans were blowing near his face.
    https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...BTqzmGqT6axPsw
    So he shot her with his blades off?
    He didn't want to shoot himself in the foot.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,809
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    Does he go to bed with the blades on? If not then did he take the time to put them on & pick up a gun, all the while not noticing whether his gf was with him in the room?
    1.40pm: The prosecution is asking Pistorius how it is possible that he did not see Steenkamp get out of bed to go to the toilet on the night of the shooting. Pistorius describes how he woke up, took two fans in from the balcony and shut the doors and curtains. Nel asks if it is not “strange” that he failed to see Steenkamp. “It was pitch black and it was behind me so it is not strange at all,” says Pistorius. He suggests that without his legs, he was also at a height where the fans were blowing near his face.
    https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...BTqzmGqT6axPsw
    So he shot her with his blades off?
    He didn't want to shoot himself in the foot.
    Ouch! Good one!

    So if he shot her from his knees then were forensics able to determine the bullets' trajectory through the door to prove he did?
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post

    So if he shot her from his knees then were forensics able to determine the bullets' trajectory through the door to prove he did?
    IF he gets off the charge, next time at the Olympics he is going to win the shooting competition.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,809
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post

    So if he shot her from his knees then were forensics able to determine the bullets' trajectory through the door to prove he did?
    IF he gets off the charge, next time at the Olympics he is going to win the shooting competition.
    You should have stopped after the last joke
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post

    So if he shot her from his knees then were forensics able to determine the bullets' trajectory through the door to prove he did?
    IF he gets off the charge, next time at the Olympics he is going to win the shooting competition.
    You should have stopped after the last joke
    I have always been amazed that someone can get 4/5 shots hitting the target through a door.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,839
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post

    So if he shot her from his knees then were forensics able to determine the bullets' trajectory through the door to prove he did?
    IF he gets off the charge, next time at the Olympics he is going to win the shooting competition.
    You should have stopped after the last joke
    Seems like big business is involved to me. can you remember Perry Mason, The crazy lawyer with Della
    street? This could be a title from one of his books, "The case of the missing legs". Just think of it, the first man to come that far in sports with an engineered leg. I know, that's far fetched, but hey, now a days its all about money, people will do almost anything for that paper dream.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,839
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post

    So if he shot her from his knees then were forensics able to determine the bullets' trajectory through the door to prove he did?
    IF he gets off the charge, next time at the Olympics he is going to win the shooting competition.
    You should have stopped after the last joke
    I have always been amazed that someone can get 4/5 shots hitting the target through a door.
    Without legs.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargate View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post

    So if he shot her from his knees then were forensics able to determine the bullets' trajectory through the door to prove he did?
    IF he gets off the charge, next time at the Olympics he is going to win the shooting competition.
    You should have stopped after the last joke
    I have always been amazed that someone can get 4/5 shots hitting the target through a door.
    Without legs.
    With or without legs it is an amazing score.
    Stargate likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Professor jrmonroe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,444
    I hadn't thought of it being good/lucky shots through a door.

    Besides, if you live with someone for even a short while, you get to know what they're doing by sound. Oh, that's Reeva doing this, or that's Reeva doing that, etc. So, we're supposed to believe that she was in there doing something completely out of the ordinary?

    And besides, Robbitybob1's awful joke made me think. After she died instantly from one of the shots, he allegedly (forced) opened the door to confront the alleged burglar when he was allegedly so fearful of criminals? I would have backed away and/or reloaded, and then called the police and waited for them to arrive and apprehend the burglar(s) themselves.
    Stargate likes this.
    Grief is the price we pay for love. (CM Parkes) Our postillion has been struck by lightning. (Unknown) War is always the choice of the chosen who will not have to fight. (Bono) The years tell much what the days never knew. (RW Emerson) Reality is not always probable, or likely. (JL Borges)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by jrmonroe View Post
    I hadn't thought of it being good/lucky shots through a door.

    Besides, if you live with someone for even a short while, you get to know what they're doing by sound. Oh, that's Reeva doing this, or that's Reeva doing that, etc. So, we're supposed to believe that she was in there doing something completely out of the ordinary?

    And besides, Robbitybob1's awful joke made me think. After she died instantly from one of the shots, he allegedly (forced) opened the door to confront the alleged burglar when he was allegedly so fearful of criminals? I would have backed away and/or reloaded, and then called the police and waited for them to arrive and apprehend the burglar(s) themselves.
    He could hear someone behind the door, he shot the unknown person 4 times. If the first shot hit the target, the next three needed to be aimed lower. That person wasn't standing after that. So I tend to think he knew the first shot hit the target, so is he lying on that point?
    A person falling in the toilet would have fallen down with a thud.

    It was an accident that it was his girlfriend but he definitely intended to kill whoever was in the toilet.
    So it is murder in a sense but he didn't intend to kill Reva.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,839
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jrmonroe View Post
    I hadn't thought of it being good/lucky shots through a door.

    Besides, if you live with someone for even a short while, you get to know what they're doing by sound. Oh, that's Reeva doing this, or that's Reeva doing that, etc. So, we're supposed to believe that she was in there doing something completely out of the ordinary?

    And besides, Robbitybob1's awful joke made me think. After she died instantly from one of the shots, he allegedly (forced) opened the door to confront the alleged burglar when he was allegedly so fearful of criminals? I would have backed away and/or reloaded, and then called the police and waited for them to arrive and apprehend the burglar(s) themselves.
    He could hear someone behind the door, he shot the unknown person 4 times. If the first shot hit the target, the next three needed to be aimed lower. That person wasn't standing after that. So I tend to think he knew the first shot hit the target, so is he lying on that point?
    A person falling in the toilet would have fallen down with a thud.

    It was an accident that it was his girlfriend but he definitely intended to kill whoever was in the toilet.
    So it is murder in a sense but he didn't intend to kill Reva.
    As I see it if he did not mean to kill her, he had better find a more convincing story. If he is telling the truth he does not behave in the same way the general person does, I guess you have to leave room for the shadow of doubt.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,789
    Odd that he got up from bed to go to the window but didn't see his wife get out of bed. He also said that he moved something, the fan I think, so if he could see the fan in order to move it why didn't he see his wife get out of bed or hear her? His stories just don't add up.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargate View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jrmonroe View Post
    I hadn't thought of it being good/lucky shots through a door.

    Besides, if you live with someone for even a short while, you get to know what they're doing by sound. Oh, that's Reeva doing this, or that's Reeva doing that, etc. So, we're supposed to believe that she was in there doing something completely out of the ordinary?

    And besides, Robbitybob1's awful joke made me think. After she died instantly from one of the shots, he allegedly (forced) opened the door to confront the alleged burglar when he was allegedly so fearful of criminals? I would have backed away and/or reloaded, and then called the police and waited for them to arrive and apprehend the burglar(s) themselves.
    He could hear someone behind the door, he shot the unknown person 4 times. If the first shot hit the target, the next three needed to be aimed lower. That person wasn't standing after that. So I tend to think he knew the first shot hit the target, so is he lying on that point?
    A person falling in the toilet would have fallen down with a thud.

    It was an accident that it was his girlfriend but he definitely intended to kill whoever was in the toilet.
    So it is murder in a sense but he didn't intend to kill Reva.
    As I see it if he did not mean to kill her, he had better find a more convincing story. If he is telling the truth he does not behave in the same way the general person does, I guess you have to leave room for the shadow of doubt.
    Would it be OK to kill an intruder? He had no intention to kill her. But she ends up being the "intruder". The mistake is not making sure the person in the toilet was an intruder. He was too trigger happy. Probably wanting to be the hero and take down the intruder in front of Reva.
    It is their attitude, that it is OK fire a shot through the door without identifying the target, that is the root cause of this tragedy.
    Had it been a real burglar would he have been a hero?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    I must confess I've only seen snipets of the trial coverage on the news but it seems that the prosecution are still really struggling for motive, they claim that he and Reeva were argueing but I can't see that unless this was actually a motive for murder that can get the jury to return a guilty verdict. The prosecution seems to be pinning it's case on presenting Oscar Pistorius as a liar, because they haven't any real evidence that can prove that he didn't genuinely believe he was shooting at an intruder.

    So I think that's what this whole trial will hinge on, the strength of prosecutions claims of motive, which argueing with a girlfriend as a motive for murder is weak at best and or if they can make the jury think he lying about the events, all in all though pretty hard to return a guilty verdict 'beyond all reasonable doubt' on the evidence available.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    I must confess I've only seen snipets of the trial coverage on the news but it seems that the prosecution are still really struggling for motive, they claim that he and Reeva were arguing but I can't see that unless this was actually a motive for murder that can get the jury to return a guilty verdict. The prosecution seems to be pinning it's case on presenting Oscar Pistorius as a liar, because they haven't any real evidence that can prove that he didn't genuinely believe he was shooting at an intruder.

    So I think that's what this whole trial will hinge on, the strength of prosecutions claims of motive, which arguing with a girlfriend as a motive for murder is weak at best and or if they can make the jury think he lying about the events, all in all though pretty hard to return a guilty verdict 'beyond all reasonable doubt' on the evidence available.
    So are you thinking it wasn't murder if it was really an intruder? OK, I'll admit an intruder could make a person panic, and one fear for their life and hence shoot someone in self defense even before they have seen their attacker, but the fear emanating just from their own imaginations and vulnerability.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    I must confess I've only seen snipets of the trial coverage on the news but it seems that the prosecution are still really struggling for motive, they claim that he and Reeva were argueing but I can't see that unless this was actually a motive for murder that can get the jury to return a guilty verdict.
    It seems like a credible motive to me. We've all known or heard of guys who are possessive and jealous, who turn violent when the woman decides to leave. O. J. Simpson is a good example. I don't know if that's what really happened, but it's plausible.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,789
    From the trial....

    What did you shout as you went down the passage?" asked Nel, for the third time Monday.Pistorius took a deep breath, sitting back in his chair.
    "I screamed for them to get the [expletive] out of my house!" he said, his voice rising several pitches. "Get the [expletive] out of my house!"
    The athlete broke down, red-faced and shaking, a vein standing out on his forehead.
    The court adjourned for him to gather himself.


    Then his girlfriend had to hear him screaming and either yelled or screamed back that it was her in the bathroom. There was ample time for her to do something to let him know she was inside by talking or opening the door. It seems he either did not hear her or he didn't give her time to get out and just started shooting without saying anything.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    It seems he either did not hear her or he didn't give her time to get out and just started shooting without saying anything.
    If I heard my GF scream "Get out of my house!", I wouldn't think she was shouting at me - I would think she was shouting at an intruder.
    So perhaps Reva heard but was too scared (by the thought that her BF was confronting an intruder) to come out of the toilet?

    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    It seems he either did not hear her or he didn't give her time to get out and just started shooting without saying anything.
    ...or he didn't scream anything.
    Just sayin'.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,839
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    From the trial....

    What did you shout as you went down the passage?" asked Nel, for the third time Monday.Pistorius took a deep breath, sitting back in his chair.
    "I screamed for them to get the [expletive] out of my house!" he said, his voice rising several pitches. "Get the [expletive] out of my house!"
    The athlete broke down, red-faced and shaking, a vein standing out on his forehead.
    The court adjourned for him to gather himself.


    Then his girlfriend had to hear him screaming and either yelled or screamed back that it was her in the bathroom. There was ample time for her to do something to let him know she was inside by talking or opening the door. It seems he either did not hear her or he didn't give her time to get out and just started shooting without saying anything.
    Money, money, money, its not funny, in a rich mans world. A future for bio-metrics.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Forum Freshman Pongo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Scotland UK
    Posts
    48
    quick temper - trigger happy and reckless what a combination.

    he isn't above shooting the floor in a public restaurant and he appears to me to have been mentally disturbed well before this point.

    I have been advised by SA people that unlike the USA and UK they don't do trial by jury in South Africa.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,839
    Quote Originally Posted by Pongo View Post
    quick temper - trigger happy and reckless what a combination.

    he isn't above shooting the floor in a public restaurant and he appears to me to have been mentally disturbed well before this point.

    I have been advised by SA people that unlike the USA and UK they don't do trial by jury in South Africa.
    What does that mean, there is no justice in South Africa?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    I must confess I've only seen snipets of the trial coverage on the news but it seems that the prosecution are still really struggling for motive, they claim that he and Reeva were arguing but I can't see that unless this was actually a motive for murder that can get the jury to return a guilty verdict. The prosecution seems to be pinning it's case on presenting Oscar Pistorius as a liar, because they haven't any real evidence that can prove that he didn't genuinely believe he was shooting at an intruder.So I think that's what this whole trial will hinge on, the strength of prosecutions claims of motive, which arguing with a girlfriend as a motive for murder is weak at best and or if they can make the jury think he lying about the events, all in all though pretty hard to return a guilty verdict 'beyond all reasonable doubt' on the evidence available.
    So are you thinking it wasn't murder if it was really an intruder? OK, I'll admit an intruder could make a person panic, and one fear for their life and hence shoot someone in self defense even before they have seen their attacker, but the fear emanating just from their own imaginations and vulnerability.
    The point is we don't know what he thought because we weren't there, as such there must at least be some doubt so then the question becomes is his version of events so far fetched and obviously it's not so motive becomes crucial.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    I must confess I've only seen snipets of the trial coverage on the news but it seems that the prosecution are still really struggling for motive, they claim that he and Reeva were arguing but I can't see that unless this was actually a motive for murder that can get the jury to return a guilty verdict. The prosecution seems to be pinning it's case on presenting Oscar Pistorius as a liar, because they haven't any real evidence that can prove that he didn't genuinely believe he was shooting at an intruder.So I think that's what this whole trial will hinge on, the strength of prosecutions claims of motive, which arguing with a girlfriend as a motive for murder is weak at best and or if they can make the jury think he lying about the events, all in all though pretty hard to return a guilty verdict 'beyond all reasonable doubt' on the evidence available.
    So are you thinking it wasn't murder if it was really an intruder? OK, I'll admit an intruder could make a person panic, and one fear for their life and hence shoot someone in self defense even before they have seen their attacker, but the fear emanating just from their own imaginations and vulnerability.
    The point is we don't know what he thought because we weren't there, as such there must at least be some doubt so then the question becomes is his version of events so far fetched and obviously it's not so motive becomes crucial.
    They were using the term "Human experience" on the News today, sort of saying his explanation was not normal human experience.
    I don't know if that is a sound judgement for there will be a vast range of human experience and largely based on cultural norms. What is done in SA might be different than in New York.
    How many of us have had to walk around on stumps? Is a man on stumps going to react to danger differently?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    I must confess I've only seen snipets of the trial coverage on the news but it seems that the prosecution are still really struggling for motive, they claim that he and Reeva were argueing but I can't see that unless this was actually a motive for murder that can get the jury to return a guilty verdict.
    It seems like a credible motive to me. We've all known or heard of guys who are possessive and jealous, who turn violent when the woman decides to leave. O. J. Simpson is a good example. I don't know if that's what really happened, but it's plausible.
    Whilst I would agree it's plausible as motive I still think that unless they can seriously substantiate it then it's just not strong enough to convict someone of murder, certainly plausible leaves massive room for doubt. I wouldn't be comfortable returning a guilty verdict on that motive if I were sitting on the jury. Also the motive is so crucial because means and opportunity are irrelevant since we already know that he shot and killed her. Could anybody really be comfortable convicting someone of murder on the basis that believe it's more plausible to shoot someone dead after an argument than shoot someone dead who they believed were breaking into their home?
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,839
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    I must confess I've only seen snipets of the trial coverage on the news but it seems that the prosecution are still really struggling for motive, they claim that he and Reeva were argueing but I can't see that unless this was actually a motive for murder that can get the jury to return a guilty verdict.
    It seems like a credible motive to me. We've all known or heard of guys who are possessive and jealous, who turn violent when the woman decides to leave. O. J. Simpson is a good example. I don't know if that's what really happened, but it's plausible.
    Whilst I would agree it's plausible as motive I still think that unless they can seriously substantiate it then it's just not strong enough to convict someone of murder, certainly plausible leaves massive room for doubt. I wouldn't be comfortable returning a guilty verdict on that motive if I were sitting on the jury. Also the motive is so crucial because means and opportunity are irrelevant since we already know that he shot and killed her. Could anybody really be comfortable convicting someone of murder on the basis that believe it's more plausible to shoot someone dead after an argument than shoot someone dead who they believed were breaking into their home?
    Ascended, I tend to want to agree with although I have my doubts about his story. It is not enough to claim he murdered her, because his mindset could be quite different to how we generally think.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    I must confess I've only seen snipets of the trial coverage on the news but it seems that the prosecution are still really struggling for motive, they claim that he and Reeva were arguing but I can't see that unless this was actually a motive for murder that can get the jury to return a guilty verdict. The prosecution seems to be pinning it's case on presenting Oscar Pistorius as a liar, because they haven't any real evidence that can prove that he didn't genuinely believe he was shooting at an intruder.So I think that's what this whole trial will hinge on, the strength of prosecutions claims of motive, which arguing with a girlfriend as a motive for murder is weak at best and or if they can make the jury think he lying about the events, all in all though pretty hard to return a guilty verdict 'beyond all reasonable doubt' on the evidence available.
    So are you thinking it wasn't murder if it was really an intruder? OK, I'll admit an intruder could make a person panic, and one fear for their life and hence shoot someone in self defense even before they have seen their attacker, but the fear emanating just from their own imaginations and vulnerability.
    The point is we don't know what he thought because we weren't there, as such there must at least be some doubt so then the question becomes is his version of events so far fetched and obviously it's not so motive becomes crucial.
    They were using the term "Human experience" on the News today, sort of saying his explanation was not normal human experience. I don't know if that is a sound judgement for there will be a vast range of human experience and largely based on cultural norms. What is done in SA might be different than in New York. How many of us have had to walk around on stumps? Is a man on stumps going to react to danger differently?
    Well if you ask me the prosecution kind of shot themselves in the foot slightly, if you'll pardon the pun, when they portrayed him as trigger happy. They were trying to make jury believe he was capable of murdering her, but what they also actually did make people aware that this was a kind of person that could shoot first and think later making more likely he would shoot at an intruder. They actually helped define a plausible level of human experience where someone could indeed be spooked into recklessly shooting. Most people would probably at least check who they are shooting at, yet thanks to the prosecution the jury now know this is a guy that would shoot a gun in a restaurant so how much of a stretch is it for them to believe that such a person at home with a bunch of guns couldn't or wouldn't be shooting without thinking.Now if the prosecution had portrayed him as being careful and considered then his version of events would be far less believable.
    Stargate likes this.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Forum Freshman Pongo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Scotland UK
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargate View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Pongo View Post
    quick temper - trigger happy and reckless what a combination.

    he isn't above shooting the floor in a public restaurant and he appears to me to have been mentally disturbed well before this point.

    I have been advised by SA people that unlike the USA and UK they don't do trial by jury in South Africa.
    What does that mean, there is no justice in South Africa?
    what in particular are you referring to when you say 'what does that mean' I said quite a lot can you be more specific.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    I think he should be convicted of at least manslaughter. Even if there had been a burglar in the bathroom, it would not be acceptable to blast away blindly at an intruder. There has to be a credible threat to your life. This is the kind of behavior that gives self-defense a bad name.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,839
    Quote Originally Posted by Pongo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargate View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Pongo View Post
    quick temper - trigger happy and reckless what a combination.

    he isn't above shooting the floor in a public restaurant and he appears to me to have been mentally disturbed well before this point.

    I have been advised by SA people that unlike the USA and UK they don't do trial by jury in South Africa.
    What does that mean, there is no justice in South Africa?
    what in particular are you referring to when you say 'what does that mean' I said quite a lot can you be more specific.
    I was inquiring what difference does it make where justice is concerned when they do not have a jury
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,839
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    I think he should be convicted of at least manslaughter. Even if there had been a burglar in the bathroom, it would not be acceptable to blast away blindly at an intruder. There has to be a credible threat to your life. This is the kind of behavior that gives self-defense a bad name.
    I agree with you Harold, it would be a travesty when someone could just willy nily get up and say they think there is a burglar and shoot someone dead that is normally a person in the household. I think the penalty should be the harshest that can be handed down. I do not think in this case murder can be proven.
    Ascended likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Forum Freshman Pongo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Scotland UK
    Posts
    48
    not wishing to upset the legal system of another country I must respect the system now existing in SA and hope it provides the justice this case merits.

    whether it is best to be judged by a group of your peers who have no specialist legal knowledge or by three people who do is open to discussion.
    Stargate likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Quote Originally Posted by Pongo View Post
    not wishing to upset the legal system of another country I must respect the system now existing in SA and hope it provides the justice this case merits.

    whether it is best to be judged by a group of your peers who have no specialist legal knowledge or by three people who do is open to discussion.
    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.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,839
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Pongo View Post
    not wishing to upset the legal system of another country I must respect the system now existing in SA and hope it provides the justice this case merits.

    whether it is best to be judged by a group of your peers who have no specialist legal knowledge or by three people who do is open to discussion.
    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 do agree with you on the first point, but people are not stupid if you use culture and education.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    I think he should be convicted of at least manslaughter. Even if there had been a burglar in the bathroom, it would not be acceptable to blast away blindly at an intruder. There has to be a credible threat to your life. This is the kind of behavior that gives self-defense a bad name.
    I completely agree, I was wondering whether their might be some lesser charger than manslaughter, but on balance you are spot on as it just can't be right or ever acceptable to kill people without even knowing who you are shooting at. This wouldn't be accepable in any walk of life.


    Quote Originally Posted by Stargate View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    I think he should be convicted of at least manslaughter. Even if there had been a burglar in the bathroom, it would not be acceptable to blast away blindly at an intruder. There has to be a credible threat to your life. This is the kind of behavior that gives self-defense a bad name.
    I agree with you Harold, it would be a travesty when someone could just willy nily get up and say they think there is a burglar and shoot someone dead that is normally a person in the household. I think the penalty should be the harshest that can be handed down. I do not think in this case murder can be proven.
    I agree also, just don't think the evidence is there to prove murder, would hate to see this being used as standard defence for murder though. I just wonder perhaps if when he is cleared of murder if they could then try him for manslaughter, but in case his celebrity status will probably make it harder to secure a conviction against him as so many cases involving celebs in the past have shown.
    RedPanda and Stargate like this.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    Forum Freshman Pongo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Scotland UK
    Posts
    48
    yes I agree on your view of the second point as well.

    sometimes an individual like a judge may be out of touch with 'ordinary people' whoever they are and the accused might get a fairer trial by ordinary people drawn from the local community rather than a possibly 'elitest ' legal system.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Forum Professor river_rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    1,497
    Some more points on our legal system - we only have a charge of murder and a charge of culpable homicide. Murder requires criminal intent to kill and is thus a subjective call of the judge about the accused intent. Intent is quite complicated here as the concept of dolus eventualis applies (ie. would you have foreseen that your actions could have resulted in the unlawful killing of another person and committed your action anyway - drunk driving is a classic example). Culpable homicide is a more objective call as it compares the actions of the accused to the behaviour of a reasonable person in the same situation.

    I believe that Oscar is already facing an alternative charge of culpable homicide btw
    Ascended and Stargate like this.
    As is often the case with technical subjects we are presented with an unfortunate choice: an explanation that is accurate but incomprehensible, or comprehensible but wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    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.
    Trial by jury is there to protect people from their government. In English law, it goes back to the Magna Carta, and was part of the limitations on the power of the king. If the king could appoint the judges and prosecutors, he could use corrupt courts to suppress any dissent.

    In a democracy, I think it still has a place. Judges and prosecutors are either elected, or appointed by elected officials. They may be influenced by other motives than to give the accused a fair trial. If there is corruption of the judicial system, the voters don't necessarily know what's going on. A jury is at least a group of people, who probably don't have any agenda, and get to see the evidence.
    Ascended likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    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.
    Trial by jury is there to protect people from their government. In English law, it goes back to the Magna Carta, and was part of the limitations on the power of the king. If the king could appoint the judges and prosecutors, he could use corrupt courts to suppress any dissent.

    In a democracy, I think it still has a place. Judges and prosecutors are either elected, or appointed by elected officials. They may be influenced by other motives than to give the accused a fair trial. If there is corruption of the judicial system, the voters don't necessarily know what's going on. A jury is at least a group of people, who probably don't have any agenda, and get to see the evidence.
    Juries are basically easily swayed by opinion and not true facts. I think I'd trust a judge over a jury.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    Forum Professor jrmonroe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,444
    River_rat, thanks for the term dolus eventualis, Roman-Dutch law probably being foreign to the rest of us here. I googled this term and found this paper, which I will eventually read.

    The fatal shot was to her head. OP shot high to do so. Shooting at someone's head or the estimated position of someone's head shows intention to kill. This is different than, say, shooting low and hitting the person in the thigh, severing the femoral artery, and the person then bleeding to death. RS died instantly.

    I listened for a couple of hours to Nel examine OP, and quite frankly, I grew tired of listening to OP's "distressed" voice, as it seemed insincere after a while. As far as I'm concerned, either he's faking it, or he's an όber-wuss (which I very seriously doubt).
    Grief is the price we pay for love. (CM Parkes) Our postillion has been struck by lightning. (Unknown) War is always the choice of the chosen who will not have to fight. (Bono) The years tell much what the days never knew. (RW Emerson) Reality is not always probable, or likely. (JL Borges)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    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.
    Trial by jury is there to protect people from their government. In English law, it goes back to the Magna Carta, and was part of the limitations on the power of the king. If the king could appoint the judges and prosecutors, he could use corrupt courts to suppress any dissent.In a democracy, I think it still has a place. Judges and prosecutors are either elected, or appointed by elected officials. They may be influenced by other motives than to give the accused a fair trial. If there is corruption of the judicial system, the voters don't necessarily know what's going on. A jury is at least a group of people, who probably don't have any agenda, and get to see the evidence.
    The jury system also has another rather important role to perform at least in English law, though far less commonly understood now than in the past, and that is of helping to set precedent and decide if the law by which someone is being tried by is both just and appropriate at the time.

    A jury may return a verdict of not guilty even when all the evidence has proved the accused guilty of the said crime if they feel that the law is being misused or even simply wrong. In this respect most new criminal charges introduced have to tested in court by a jury. What this means in practice is that when the government make new laws it is still down to 12 ordinary men and women to decide whether this is a just, fair and workable law.Whilst in many cases juries do indeed simply follow the directions of the judge its still the case that from time to time juries themselves will decide a law is either wrong or being used inappropriately. It's the simple human element of the ordinary man and woman deciding what they believe is right that goes hand in hand with concept of democracy and thus again how ordinary men and women should have the right to choose who governs them.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92  
    Forum Professor river_rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    1,497
    Quote Originally Posted by jrmonroe View Post
    The fatal shot was to her head. OP shot high to do so.
    It might help looking at the four bullet holes in the door:

    As is often the case with technical subjects we are presented with an unfortunate choice: an explanation that is accurate but incomprehensible, or comprehensible but wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #93  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,839
    Quote Originally Posted by river_rat View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jrmonroe View Post
    The fatal shot was to her head. OP shot high to do so.
    It might help looking at the four bullet holes in the door:

    Was the fatal bullet the last one, i am noticing that the four shots were approximately in level with the door knob, she must have been going down when she received the head shot. If she was standing the first shot was somewhere in the region of the stomach. These shots were fired to kill if he knew someone was in the bathroom. When the person got the shot they must have yelled out, was it the voice he knew of his girlfriend, or the voice of someone he did not know. When did he hear the voice of the person, after how many shots? Did he recognize the voice,since there was obviously no other person there but his girlfriend.

    I am of the opinion that this is a plot, and some people stand to gain monetary from this death. However, I am always on the wild side so I could be very wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #94  
    Forum Professor river_rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    1,497
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargate View Post
    When the person got the shot they must have yelled out
    That depends on how rapidly the shots occurred does it not?
    As is often the case with technical subjects we are presented with an unfortunate choice: an explanation that is accurate but incomprehensible, or comprehensible but wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #95  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,839
    Quote Originally Posted by river_rat View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargate View Post
    When the person got the shot they must have yelled out
    That depends on how rapidly the shots occurred does it not?
    I don't care how rapidly you fire, the first shot to reach the subject will demand a cry, don't you think? have you ever being shot? Do you know anyone who has been shot? have you any idea how it feels? I don't, however I have had objects piercing my body and high speed. The first thing I felt was a sharp pain like a sting and I let go a sort of uncontrolled sound.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #96  
    Forum Professor river_rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    1,497
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargate View Post
    I don't care how rapidly you fire, the first shot to reach the subject will demand a cry, don't you think?
    Once again it depends on how rapidly the shooting occurs, never mind fight and flight responses etc. Human reaction time is around 300ms and you can easily shoot 2-3 rounds in that time. So by the time your brain knows what is going on the third or fourth round is hitting you.

    have you ever being shot?
    I have almost been shot, does that count?

    Do you know anyone who has been shot?
    Yes

    have you any idea how it feels? I don't, however I have had objects piercing my body and high speed. The first thing I felt was a sharp pain like a sting and I let go a sort of uncontrolled sound.
    I'm not sure how extrapolation from that experiences helps here?
    As is often the case with technical subjects we are presented with an unfortunate choice: an explanation that is accurate but incomprehensible, or comprehensible but wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #97  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,839
    Quote Originally Posted by river_rat View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargate View Post
    I don't care how rapidly you fire, the first shot to reach the subject will demand a cry, don't you think?
    Once again it depends on how rapidly the shooting occurs, never mind fight and flight responses etc. Human reaction time is around 300ms and you can easily shoot 2-3 rounds in that time. So by the time your brain knows what is going on the third or fourth round is hitting you.

    have you ever being shot?
    I have almost been shot, does that count?

    Do you know anyone who has been shot?
    Yes

    have you any idea how it feels? I don't, however I have had objects piercing my body and high speed. The first thing I felt was a sharp pain like a sting and I let go a sort of uncontrolled sound.
    I'm not sure how extrapolation from that experiences helps here?
    I'm not sure how extrapolation from that experiences helps here?
    Since I do not have the experience of having been shot, I am using the experience I have to make my conclusions, I do not have to be right though.

    The question still remains, did he hear her make a sound? if he did when did she make the sound, or how many shots were fired before he heard a sound. As you say he must have fired the shots in quick succession, so quick that she did not have time to make a sound.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #98  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,789
    What if he planned to kill her when she went into the bathroom? He waited until she went in then started shooting her dead. This is a plausible way to think as he just wanted her dead and this was the easiest way to do so. I'm just saying what if.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #99  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,839
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    What if he planned to kill her when she went into the bathroom? He waited until she went in then started shooting her dead. This is a plausible way to think as he just wanted her dead and this was the easiest way to do so. I'm just saying what if.
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  101. #100  
    Forum Professor jrmonroe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,444
    Making an utterance does not necessarily follow being shot. In fact, the person might not say anything for several seconds, if at all, due to shock.

    I have shot plenty of guns, and manually shooting two or three rounds in 300 ms is extremely fast, even with a semi-automatic. It amounts to 400 to 600 rounds per minute, which is the cyclic rate for a fully automatic weapon. It would sound like a short burst from a fully automatic weapon.
    Grief is the price we pay for love. (CM Parkes) Our postillion has been struck by lightning. (Unknown) War is always the choice of the chosen who will not have to fight. (Bono) The years tell much what the days never knew. (RW Emerson) Reality is not always probable, or likely. (JL Borges)
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. The Trial
    By Cogito Ergo Sum in forum In the News
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: October 5th, 2014, 03:52 PM
  2. Zimmerman trial
    By Harold14370 in forum Criminology and Forensic Science
    Replies: 439
    Last Post: July 29th, 2013, 01:44 PM
  3. trial and error
    By parag29081973 in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: April 26th, 2013, 04:39 AM
  4. Oscar Pistorius
    By Harold14370 in forum Criminology and Forensic Science
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: March 2nd, 2013, 01:55 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •