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

Seachmall

fishy fishy wrote: »

the only thing that is bothering him and his team now are how to come up with a story that will get him off.

They're not going to come up with a story, that's not their job.

All they have to do is demonstrate reasonable doubt in the prosecution's account, and from what I've read they're doing that pretty well.

Not in the least because the lead investigator seems to be a moron (doesn't know what drugs they found, doesn't know how far the neighbours are, etc.).

robinph

fishy fishy wrote: »

are you saying he's not guilty? The dogs on the street knows he's guilty as sin. the only thing that is bothering him and his team now are how to come up with a story that will get him off.

There is no reliable evidence presented so far that contradicts Pistouris story.

What are you basing the declaration of him obviously being guilty on?

paddy147

fishy fishy wrote: »

are you saying he's not guilty? The dogs on the street knows he's guilty as sin. the only thing that is bothering him and his team now are how to come up with a story that will get him off.

Dont forget losing multi million dollar contracts and sponsership deals,race meet purses too.

His PR crew seemed more interested in that a few days ago when talking to the news media outside the court.

opinion guy

fishy fishy wrote: »

very true David. and of course the prosecution would know this too - which makes me wonder why they are rolling over at this point. It could be a tactic on their part to feign defeat now which buys them time to prove what happened.

...or because they don't have a case and have been caught out on the stuff they are saying.

fishy fishy wrote: »

are you saying he's not guilty? The dogs on the street knows he's guilty as sin. the only thing that is bothering him and his team now are how to come up with a story that will get him off.

Guilty of what exactly?
Do you even know what we are debating here ?

fishy fishy

opinion guy wrote: »

How do you know that ? What are you basing that judgement on ?


on the fact that there was nobody else in the house except the two of them, and one of them ended up dead.

he shot the girl - it was him - nobody else - he is completely guilty of taking her life. She's not coming back

trying to make out that he is not guilty is stupid.

robinph

paddy147 wrote: »

And bladegunner????:pac:

What about him?

opinion guy

fishy fishy wrote: »

opinion guy wrote: »

How do you know that ? What are you basing that judgement on ?

on the fact that there was nobody else in the house except the two of them, and one of them ended up dead.

he shot the girl - it was him - nobody else - he is completely guilty of taking her life. She's not coming back

trying to make out that he is not guilty is stupid.

Nobody but nobody is saying he didn't shoot her.
Pay attention.
Do you understand the difference between murder, premeditated murder, manslaughter and accidental death ? I don't think you do.

Edit - fix your quotes please

namloc1980

seamus wrote: »

He may have felt that the balcony was secure. If it hangs off the side of the building, then there's no feasibly way of climbing onto it without grappling hook or something.

Apart from the ladders around the outside of the house that he detailed in his affidavit!

robinph

fishy fishy wrote: »

opinion guy wrote: »

How do you know that ? What are you basing that judgement on ?

on the fact that there was nobody else in the house except the two of them, and one of them ended up dead.

he shot the girl - it was him - nobody else - he is completely guilty of taking her life. She's not coming back

trying to make out that he is not guilty is stupid.

No-one is disputing the fact that he fired the gun that killed her.

Are you aware of what is being argued over in the bail hearing and what the trial will be about?

Seachmall

fishy fishy wrote: »

on the fact that there was nobody else in the house except the two of them, and one of them ended up dead.

he shot the girl - it was him - nobody else - he is completely guilty of taking her life. She's not coming back

trying to make out that he is not guilty is stupid.

They're not deciding if he shot her or not. Of course he shot her.

They're trying to decide if there's enough evidence to show it was premeditated.

Gosub

opinion guy wrote: »

Do you even know what we are debating here ?

OFFS.. this is after hours, not fricken Ironside.

seamus

fishy fishy wrote: »

are you saying he's not guilty? The dogs on the street knows he's guilty as sin.

So you're saying you've been down to SA to have a chat with the dogs on the street?

What choice evidence then have you got which completely contradicts his statement?

As far as I can see, the police story has been shown up to be a house of cards based on rumour and supposition and so far Pistorious's statement hasn't been contradicted.

Whether I believe it or not is irrelevant, and whether it's true or not isn't that relevant. What's relevant is whether there is evidence to contradict his statement.

There isn't any, not based on what's been reported.

namloc1980 wrote:

Apart from the ladders around the outside of the house that he detailed in his affidavit!

Very difficult to climb onto an overhanging balcony if the ladder doesn't reach it. Even a professional rock climber would have trouble with that one. A window not so much.

robinph

namloc1980 wrote: »

Apart from the ladders around the outside of the house that he detailed in his affidavit!

Which were round the other side of the building as contractors had been doing some work in the back garden I believe.

opinion guy

Gosub wrote: »

OFFS.. this is after hours, not fricken Ironside.

More like Twelve Angry Men :P

paddy147

robinph wrote: »

What about him?

So thats normal for a person to do and act like that in a secure housing complex????


hes paranoid as fcuk,a very angry man,he will leave the alarm off and he will just shoot this person through the door several times aswell.

He alkso cant tell the difference between the voice of his girlfriend and a stranger either??


Come on like.....:pac:

paddy147

Wheres Jessica Fletcher when you need her.

She will get to the bottom of this for sure.:pac::D

opinion guy

paddy147 wrote: »

So thats normal for a person to do and act like that in a secure housing complex????


hes paranoid as fcuk,a very angry man,he will leave the alarm off and he will just shoot this person through the door several times aswell.

He alkso cant tell the difference between the voice of his girlfriend and a stranger either??


Come on like.....:pac:

Plenty of people on boards seem to think its perfectly reasonable to shoot first ask questions later if you think you have an intruder in your house. Not me mind you, but plenty of people voice those opinions everytime there is a home invasion story in the news

davet82

The Sun have a pretty good diagram of the bathroom (i know its the sun just dont read the article and check out the picture) see what people make of it, it gives you a better picture i think

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4804123/Oscar-Pistorius-and-Reeva-Steenkamp-argued-before-gunfire-court-hears.html

opinions we know none of this as fact of course

Magic Pips

My feeling is that he is guilty. I live here - and perhaps know more about how (i think) one would act if there was an intruder situation.

http://media.2oceansvibe.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/balcony-floorplan.jpg

The gun was either under his pillow, or in the holster on Reeva's side of the bed.

Regardless if you pick up a gun thinking theres an intruder you would not go deal with it without waking your partner - This for me is crucial.

Also, why would the phone used to call neighbour/netcare (presumably his primary phone) not be handed over to police - another big question.

Im just giving opinions, and the feeling here - for the most, is guilty.

Also just a note on the policing over here - i would guess the wage of the IO to be in and around R10,000 a month (roughly 8k euro a year). If you pay peanuts you get monkeys.

viper006

robinph wrote: »

He was in his house in a secured complex in summer with his girlfriend in the house with him, why wouldn't he do any of those things. Nothing strange at all about any of that.

However, when he gets out of bed to move the fan, leaving girlfriend asleep in bed he then hears a sound in the next room. Now it couldn't be the girlfriend as she's asleep in bed, so therefore someone could have got in through the window that he had just closed, or the other open window in the bathroom. Panic ensues and then all logic goes out that open window as far as claims of what would be the logical course of action.

None of that is proof of his claims, but why is it so hard for people to grasp that the story fits.

What doesn't fit in any way is a claim by the prosecution that it was pre-meditated. They could possibly argue a case around an argument having gone wrong, but not sure that I'd buy the idea of her hiding in the loo if she was trying to get away from him.

Why would'nt it obviously be his girlfriend whom he woke up when he is getting outta bed himself. Granted he didnt see her wake up but To assume its an intruder and open fire through a closed door without even checking if his girlfriend is in the bed first is absolutely crazy. he also claims to have first shouted a warning to the person inside room first before, Surely when he shouted at the person, his gf would reply its only her calm down!! Im not saying the guy set out to murder his gf but the people reasoning his actions as just as much going to extremes as the people straight saying hes guiltly right off.

robinph

paddy147 wrote: »

So thats normal for a person to do and act like that in a secure housing complex????


hes paranoid as fcuk,a very angry man,he will leave the alarm off and he will just shoot this person through the door several times aswell.

He alkso cant tell the difference between the voice of his girlfriend and a stranger either??


Come on like.....:pac:

Normal for someone with no legs below the knee to be scared on hearing unexplained noises near their bedroom in the middle of the night? Yes, perfectly normal.

You have evidence that his girlfriend spoke to him through the bathroom door?

davet82

paddy147 wrote: »

Wheres Jessica Fletcher when you need her.

She will get to the bottom of this for sure.:pac::D

more of a columbo fan myself

fishy fishy

he's a killer.

he killed a poor defenseless woman.

he is trying to defend himself with whatever story sounds plausible just like every other person who kills somebody does.

people who kill people come in all shapes and sizes, professions and wealth. they don't always have to be poor or from a bad area.

difference is people show their prejudice when they come across a "rich" or "well known" killer

paddy147

robinph wrote: »

Normal for someone with no legs below the knee to be scared on hearing unexplained noises near their bedroom in the middle of the night? Yes, perfectly normal.

You have evidence that his girlfriend spoke to him through the bathroom door?

Normal for alarm to be left off,and loaded guns in the house in a secure housing complex??.

What about an hour of screaming prior to the shots being fired then???

Funny now that the "because he has no legs" excuse comes into it.

I thought he wanted to be treated and seen as equal to an able bodied person????:pac:

robinph

viper006 wrote: »

Why would'nt it obviously be his girlfriend whom he woke up when he is getting outta bed himself. Granted he didnt see her wake up but To assume its an intruder and open fire through a closed door without even checking if his girlfriend is in the bed first is absolutely crazy. he also claims to have first shouted a warning to the person inside room first before, Surely when he shouted at the person, his gf would reply its only her calm down!! Im not saying the guy set out to murder his gf but the people reasoning his actions as just as much going to extremes as the people straight saying hes guiltly right off.

Agreed, it is totally crazy that he went and shot through the toilet door before establishing exactly where his girlfriend was. I find it more believable that in the heat of the moment of thinking there was an intruder that he forgot that bit of logical thinking and shot anyway, that alternative of it being pre-meditated murder is an even more daft scenario, an argument gone wrong is plausible but still unlikely and there is no evidence to back up that idea.

Bacchus

Magic Pips wrote: »

My feeling is that he is guilty. I live here - and perhaps know more about how (i think) one would act if there was an intruder situation.

http://media.2oceansvibe.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/balcony-floorplan.jpg

The gun was either under his pillow, or in the holster on Reeva's side of the bed.

... or under the bed, or on his side of the bed, or in a bed side locker. Do we know where the gun was retrieved from yet? Doesn't sound like you do but you're placing it conveniently to fit your verdict. Heck, why not just say the gun was under her pillow.

Magic Pips wrote: »

Regardless if you pick up a gun thinking theres an intruder you would not go deal with it without waking your partner - This for me is crucial.

In his statement he said he shouted to Reeva to call the police before shooting. A good question is why she didn't shout from the bathroom. Perhaps she thought the intruder was outside and she stayed quiet to avoid detection?

Magic Pips wrote: »

Also, why would the phone used to call neighbour/netcare (presumably his primary phone) not be handed over to police - another big question.

See the above references to the incompetence of the police.

Magic Pips wrote: »

i would guess the wage of the IO to be in and around R10,000 a month (roughly 8k euro a year). If you pay peanuts you get monkeys.

Seems to about sum things up as far as the prosecution is going.

davet82

Magic Pips wrote: »

My feeling is that he is guilty. I live here - and perhaps know more about how (i think) one would act if there was an intruder situation.

I'm curious to what common opinion is in SA, do you get the feeling most think he is guilty?

Seachmall

fishy fishy wrote: »

he is trying to defend himself with whatever story sounds plausible just like every other person who kills somebody does.

If it's plausible enough and deemed possible then he is entitled to the benefit of the doubt under most laws, including S.A. laws.

You have clearly already decided he is guilty because nothing that has been reported has demonstrated his story as being implausible (and we must start with the assumption that it's true).

fishy fishy

Seachmall wrote: »

If it's plausible enough and deemed possible then he is entitled to the benefit of the doubt under most laws, including S.A. laws.

You have clearly already decided he is guilty because nothing that has been reported has demonstrated his story as being implausible.

he is guilty of taking a life, of killing somebody isn't he?

are people here trying to justify what he did?

he killed somebody.

pickarooney

Which door in that plan is he said to have shot through?

Seachmall

fishy fishy wrote: »

he is guilty of taking a life, of killing somebody isn't he?

are people here trying to justify what he did?

he killed somebody.

The case isn't over whether or not he killed somebody.

Until you understand that your arguments will make no sense.

robinph

paddy147 wrote: »

Normal for alarm to be left off,and loaded guns in the house in a secure housing complex??.

No idea, never lived in a secure housing complex or in a country that has 50 murders a day.

paddy147 wrote: »

What about an hour of screaming prior to the shots being fired then???

No evidence for this. Supposed witness was 600m away, if someone 600m away was hearing things then I'd expect the rest of the neighbours to have come out to back up these claims as well.

paddy147 wrote: »

Funny now that the "because he has no legs" excuse comes into it.

I thought he wanted to be treated and seen as equal to an able bodied person????:pac:

Well at 4am in his own house without legs on it is an issue as far as his mobility and safety concerns. Get him on a running track and it's a different case.

Bacchus

fishy fishy wrote: »

he's a killer.

he killed a poor defenseless woman.

he is trying to defend himself with whatever story sounds plausible just like every other person who kills somebody does.

people who kill people come in all shapes and sizes, professions and wealth. they don't always have to be poor or from a bad area.

difference is people show their prejudice when they come across a "rich" or "well known" killer

I think that is an unfair statement. Initially, when I heard the story, I thought he murdered her. Not premeditated but they fought and he killed her. However, as unbiased reports are coming out from the courtroom, all I'm seeing are holes in the prosecutions story and Oscar's story is holding up well. As many people have pointed out, there has been nothing so far to dispute his version of events which indicates it was accidental.

I could equally say too that people show their prejudice, baying for blood, when they come across a "rich" or "well known" killer. Lot of that going on in this thread.

seamus

fishy fishy wrote: »

he is guilty of taking a life, of killing somebody isn't he?

"Killing someone" doesn't define a specific crime.

Or do you believe that the same penalty should apply to everyone who kills someone else, regardless of the circumstances?

Seachmall

pickarooney wrote: »

Which door in that plan is he said to have shot through?

I think it's the door that opens to the toilet. There doesn't seem to be a door into the bathroom itself, just into the toilet and the small room beside (a shower maybe?).

robinph

fishy fishy wrote: »

he is guilty of taking a life, of killing somebody isn't he?

are people here trying to justify what he did?

he killed somebody.

Again, nobody is suggesting that he didn't kill her.

What point is it that you are trying to argue?

opinion guy

fishy fishy wrote: »

he killed a poor defenseless woman.

What relevance is her gender ?

fishy fishy wrote: »

he is guilty of taking a life, of killing somebody isn't he?

are people here trying to justify what he did?

he killed somebody.

Again I ask - do you understand the difference between premeditated murder, unplanned murder, manslaughter and accidental death ?

paddy147

robinph wrote: »

No idea, never lived in a secure housing complex or in a country that has 50 murders a day.


No evidence for this. Supposed witness was 600m away, if someone 600m away was hearing things then I'd expect the rest of the neighbours to have come out to back up these claims as well.


Well at 4am in his own house without legs on it is an issue as far as his mobility and safety concerns. Get him on a running track and it's a different case.

Thats a lot of excuses there...but hey..maybe the judge is open enough to buy it all.


You are too good for boards,,your talents are being wasted here....you should be on the next flight to SA and represent Mister Golden Legs.:pac:

namloc1980

robinph wrote: »

Which were round the other side of the building as contractors had been doing some work in the back garden I believe.

So why use it in the affidavit as a possible way for the intruder to get into the bathroom, which is right next to the bedroom???

Magic Pips

Bacchus wrote: »

... or under the bed, or on his side of the bed, or in a bed side locker. Do we know where the gun was retrieved from yet? Doesn't sound like you do but you're placing it conveniently to fit your verdict. Heck, why not just say the gun was under her pillow.

Oscar has said he sleeps with his gun under his pillow, police say holster was found on the side of bed as reevas slippers and overnight bag. Im sure there are other percentage chances of it being up his rectum - but i'd think the two presented are 80%+

Bacchus wrote: »

In his statement he said he shouted to Reeva to call the police before shooting. A good question is why she didn't shout from the bathroom. Perhaps she thought the intruder was outside and she stayed quiet to avoid detection?

In what way do we think she thought there was an intruder?

Bacchus wrote: »

See the above references to the incompetence of the police.

Yup, unfortunately so

Bacchus wrote: »

Seems to about sum things up as far as the prosecution is going.

fishy fishy

Seachmall wrote: »

The case isn't over whether or not he killed somebody.

Until you understand that your arguments will make no sense.

are you serious?

there wouldn't be a case at all if he didn't kill her. come back to reality.

Magic Pips

davet82 wrote: »

I'm curious to what common opinion is in SA, do you get the feeling most think he is guilty?

the feeling amongst anyone i've talked to is guilty. if i take a wider view i'd guess 65:35 guilty:innocent

Obviously these are just my opinion.

davet82

pickarooney wrote: »

Which door in that plan is he said to have shot through?

.

Seachmall

fishy fishy wrote: »

are you serious?

there wouldn't be a case at all if he didn't kill her. come back to reality.

If you ever get called for Jury Duty just point the judge to this thread.


You'll never be called for anything ever again.

robinph

namloc1980 wrote: »

So why use it in the affidavit as a possible way for the intruder to get into the bathroom, which is right next to the bedroom???

It said that he went to the balcony, then heard noises from the bathroom, remembered the bathroom window was open and there was laders left out that side, the bathroom window did not have bars on it but was big enough to climb through.

Different windows at opposite sides of the house.

fishy fishy

Seachmall wrote: »

If you ever get called for Jury Duty just point the judge to this thread.


You'll never be called for anything ever again.

why? are you an expert on jury's - you do know there is no jury in SA.

you upset because Im not trying to make excuses for somebody that killed his girlfriend. because Im not trying to think that because he is rich/well known he could never ever do such a thing.

You do know that this guy is not a victim here - the victim was cremated yesterday, never to get a second chance at life.

wise up

robinph

fishy fishy wrote: »

are you serious?

there wouldn't be a case at all if he didn't kill her. come back to reality.

The charges are not to do with if he killed her or not.

Bacchus

Magic Pips wrote: »

In what way do we think she thought there was an intruder?

Well, he shouted out loud that there was someone in the house and shouted to call the police. Bit of a give away

opinion guy

Awaiting your reply fishy fishy
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=83310993&postcount=538

fishy fishy

robinph wrote: »

The charges are not to do with if he killed her or not.

so you are conceding that he is guilty of killing her then.

some people on here would try to tell you that he's not guilty of killing her.

he's as guilty as sin - despite his own deluded words saying how he didn't kill her - he killed her. GUILTY