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

wonderfullife

robinph wrote: »

Well until he had heard the noise from the bathroom he had no reason to be scared that night. Unexplained noise, not aware of girlfriend having got out of bed, possibly means there is an intruder.

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

As I and others have said there is no possible way you can predict how some-one will react in this kind of situation. Nor can you tell some-one how they should react. In the heat of the moment all bets are off.

The most calm and sane person could lose their mind. Some-one utterly terrified of everything could have a surge of adrenalin and suddenly become a hero. You just don't know.

Judging or convicting some-one based on what you think they should have done or what you would have done is ludocris and unreasonable and thankfully not admissable in court.

No reason to be scared that night? His whole defence is prefaced on the concept he has received death threats and feels unsafe in his own home. So when he heard noises and believed there to be an intruder he reacted by getting his gun and shooting.

When you build your whole defence around a concept of living in fear, it doesn't exactly help your case when you go around leaving ladders up, windows open and balcony doors open when going to bed. They are not the actions of a fearful person. In fact, they are the actions of someone totally secure in their environment. He had every reason to feel secure in a gated community with security at the front.

If we are to buy into his defence, we must accept his claim he lived in fear of an attack/intruder. And his actions most definitely do not reflect a permanent state of fear.

seamus

fishy fishy wrote: »

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

Where? Quote the people who said that he didn't kill her.

despite his own deluded words saying how he didn't kill her

I think you're just making this up in your own head as you go along, aren't you? Cos you're clearly not reading anything about the case.

fishy fishy

opinion guy wrote: »

What relevance is her gender ?




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

i do, yes, thanks for that.

do you understand that if this happened in a poor estate the poor guy who shot his wife/girlfriend would be thrown in jail and nobody would care less.

his story is full of holes, even his statement from his own mouth.

as far as gender is concerned - she was a woman I believe - or would you like to dispute this too

books4sale

Whatever about being guilty or not guilty of premediated murder, this guy killed somebody, he deserves to be locked away.

Legs or no legs, he's a danger to the public. It's not right having gung ho Dirty Harry types roaming the streets free firing guns left right and centre with the attitude of 'shoot first, ask questions later'.

This is the real world and real people get killed. The girlfriend's family have to face the consequence of his actions and so should he.

opinion guy

fishy fishy wrote: »

i do, yes, thanks for that.

do you understand that if this happened in a poor estate the poor guy who shot his wife/girlfriend would be thrown in jail and nobody would care less.

his story is full of holes, even his statement from his own mouth.

That's possible yes. Its terrible that that happens - but its not relevant to Oscar's guilt or otherwise.


You only partially answered my other question. What relevance is her gender to his guilt ?

opinion guy

books4sale wrote: »

Whatever about being guilty or not guilty of premediated murder, this guy killed somebody, he deserves to be locked away.

Legs or no legs, he's a danger to the public. It's not right having gung ho Dirty Harry types roaming the streets free firing guns left right and centre with the attitude of 'shoot first, ask questions later'.

This is the real world and real people get killed. The girlfriend's family have to face the consequence of his actions and so should he.

I mostly agree with this actually. But like I said - the majority on boards normally seem to favour shoot first ask questions later.

davet82

opinion guy wrote: »

the majority on boards normally seem to favour shoot first ask questions later.

A bit like someone we know

fishy fishy

opinion guy wrote: »

That's possible yes. Its terrible that that happens - but its not relevant to Oscar's guilt or otherwise.


You ignored my other question. What relevance is her gender to his guilt ?

i think I replied to both your points

also , Im sure you think yourself as fair so let me ask why you haven't posted about his disability not being an issue, when people quote it here as some sort of excuse as to why he was afraid.

to be FAIR - this guy has been legless (sorry not meaning to be offensive) since 11 months old. Im sure at the age of 26 he is well capable of living with something that he never had - he's also highly fit, and well capable, so to now bring up the point about him going around with no legs in the dark is quite naive. - he's been doing it all his life. And Im sure he a lot fitter than your ordinary joe soap.

Bacchus

fishy fishy wrote: »

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

LOL, who here denied that he killed her

He never said he didn't kill her either. He's denying murder.

fishy fishy

Bacchus wrote: »

LOL, who here denied that he killed her

He never said he didn't kill her either. He's denying murder.

read his statements to answer your second points.

re. your first point, read the whole thread - I think you will change your mind.

Bacchus

fishy fishy wrote: »

read his statements to answer your second points.

re. your first point, read the whole thread - I think you will change your mind.

Ok, apologies if he has actually come out and said that he did not kill her. Can you provide the quote please?

I've been following this thread since the start and aside from some people at the start, I don't think anyone has made that claim. What people are arguing is that he might not have murdered her. Certainly, no-one that has been debating this today with you has made that claim.

opinion guy

fishy fishy wrote: »

i think I replied to both your points

also , Im sure you think yourself as fair so let me ask why you haven't posted about his disability not being an issue, when people quote it here as some sort of excuse as to why he was afraid.

to be FAIR - this guy has been legless (sorry not meaning to be offensive) since 11 months old. Im sure at the age of 26 he is well capable of living with something that he never had - he's also highly fit, and well capable, so to now bring up the point about him going around with no legs in the dark is quite naive. - he's been doing it all his life. And Im sure he a lot fitter than your ordinary joe soap.

Wow. Mods, can one of you fix google so that when someone googles 'Strawman argument' they get redirected to this post please ? Thanks.

Oh and I'm still waiting for you to tell me what relevance her gender is towards his guilt.

Seachmall

books4sale wrote: »

Legs or no legs, he's a danger to the public. It's not right having gung ho Dirty Harry types roaming the streets free firing guns left right and centre with the attitude of 'shoot first, ask questions later'.

In fairness he wasn't roaming the streets. If he's telling the truth he was roaming his own house with his legally owned weapon in search for, what he believed to be, an intruder.

Bacchus

Ok, I've read the statement from Pistorius. He never denied killing her.

Also, I noted that he said he grabbed the gun from under the bed, not under his pillow as another poster was claiming. Small difference but enough to lend some credibility to the argument that he did not notice Reeva was not in the bed.

robinph

fishy fishy wrote: »

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

I'm not conceding anything because I have never claimed that he didn't kill her. Neither has anyone else on here claimed that he didn't kill her.

Neither does Oscar Pistouris claim to have not killed her:
http://www.jacarandafm.com/kagiso/content/en/jacaranda/jacaranda-gallery-popup?oid=1836235&ugc_order=desc&sn=popup

He does deny her murder though:
http://www.jacarandafm.com/kagiso/content/en/jacaranda/jacaranda-gallery-popup?oid=1836229&ugc_order=desc&sn=popup

fishy fishy wrote: »

read his statements to answer your second points.

re. your first point, read the whole thread - I think you will change your mind.

Have you read his statements, or actually read any of this thread?

davet82

Bacchus wrote: »

Ok, I've read the statement from Pistorius. He never denied killing her.

Also, I noted that he said he grabbed the gun from under the bed, not under his pillow as another poster was claiming. Small difference but enough to lend some credibility to the argument that he did not notice Reeva was not in the bed.

he must wear blinkers to bed...

i'd love to see the bed or its measurments and also to see how dark that room is a night, with a big balcony and windows open i'm sure there would be enough light to at least see two feet in front of you.

fishy fishy

Seachmall wrote: »

In fairness he wasn't roaming the streets. If he's telling the truth he was roaming his own house with his legally owned weapon in search for, what he believed to be, an intruder.

was the gun legal?

fishy fishy

fishy fishy wrote: »

read his statements to answer your second points.

re. your first point, read the whole thread - I think you will change your mind.

Fishy Fishy, you have been called out a few times already and haven't answered these posts as to what you are on about. One such post below by Seamus:

seamus wrote: »

.....Quote the people who said that he didn't kill her.I think you're just making this up in your own head as you go along, aren't you? Cos you're clearly not reading anything about the case.

He admits to shooting and killing her, but is saying it is a tragic mistake. The only thing that has fallen apart in this bail hearing is the prosecution. SO far Pistorious's story holds up.


You say:

fishy fishy wrote: »

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

Give one post, one post where someone has said they think he did not kill her or stop with your absolute nonsense.

davet82

fishy fishy wrote: »

was the gun legal?

yes but i think he was waiting for a permit or the ammunition he used was illegal/waiting for a permit*

*open to correction

Madam

Bacchus wrote: »

Ok, I've read the statement from Pistorius. He never denied killing her.

Also, I noted that he said he grabbed the gun from under the bed, not under his pillow as another poster was claiming. Small difference but enough to lend some credibility to the argument that he did not notice Reeva was not in the bed.

I know for sure if I suspected someone was in my house in the middle of the night - I'd make sure I knew where my husband was:rolleyes: Besides weren't they both up argueing less than an hour before?

robinph

fishy fishy wrote: »

was the gun legal?

Yes.

robinph

Madam wrote: »

Besides weren't they both up argueing less than an hour before?

No evidence for the argument, except from someone half a mile away who claimed to have heard them.

TommyKnocker

Bacchus wrote: »

Ok, I've read the statement from Pistorius. He never denied killing her.

Also, I noted that he said he grabbed the gun from under the bed, not under his pillow as another poster was claiming. Small difference but enough to lend some credibility to the argument that he did not notice Reeva was not in the bed.

Just how big is the bed :eek::eek::eek:

robinph

davet82 wrote: »

yes but i think he was waiting for a permit or the ammunition he used was illegal/waiting for a permit*

*open to correction

The .38 ammo he didn't have a license or whatever for, but it since came out that was his dads and was being stored. Not sure on the legalities of what the different licenses let you store where, but the 9mm that he used was his and was licensed.

fishy fishy

robinph wrote: »

Yes.

you sure about that

opinion guy

robinph wrote: »

No evidence for the argument, except from someone half a mile away who claimed to have heard them somebody.

Fixed that small but important detail

seamus

Whether the gun or ammo was legal though has no relevance in reality.

robinph

fishy fishy wrote: »

you sure about that

I've seen nobody claiming that it wasn't. Have you?

Give us the links if you have.

davet82

its crazy he went to all the trouble of getting under the bed for his gun and crawling around on his stumps into the bathroom and open fire but didnt bother his hole to role to check if his missus was in the bed...

its the one thing you cant argue about is common sense? I know there will always be doubt but really?

gramar

If you thought someone was in the bathroom and you were going to investigate would you shoot 3 or 4 shots through the door or shout out 'who's' there?' 'what are you doing?' etc before firing blind. If he had done this then he would have realised immediately it was his girlfriend which is one of the many reasons why his story doesn't seem credible.
Based on what I've read I'd his story has no legs to stand on but at a risk of offending anyone I'll say it doesn't hold any water.

Bacchus

davet82 wrote: »

he must wear blinkers to bed...

i'd love to see the bed or its measurments and also to see how dark that room is a night, with a big balcony and windows open i'm sure there would be enough light to at least see two feet in front of you.

It can happen to the best of us when you've a sleepy head on ya. This all happened in the middle of the night. I've woken up some mornings (when it's relatively bright) and not realised my partner wasn't in the bed next to me until I hear her pottering around downstairs

Also, without his legs, he does have a lower vantage point.

I'm sure those questions you bring up will come out in court though so you'll get an answer eventually

davet82

gramar wrote: »

If you thought someone was in the bathroom and you were going to investigate would you shoot 3 or 4 shots through the door or shout out 'who's' there?' 'what are you doing?' etc before firing blind. If he had done this then he would have realised immediately it was his girlfriend which is one of the many reasons why his story doesn't seem credible.
Based on what I've read I'd his story has no legs to stand on but at a risk of offending anyone I'll say it doesn't hold any water.

The legs thing is gonna make or break the case. Police say bullets were traveling downwards at a height that contradicts oscar's height. He says he shot with no legs on so lets see what the forensic guys come up with (and i hope to god they are better than SA police!!)

fishy fishy

robinph wrote: »

I've seen nobody claiming that it wasn't. Have you?

Give us the links if you have.

i had read yesterday that it was not legal, and then I read that he was first declined when he applied for it for some reason, and then i heard that he has applications in for six or seven more firearms, but didn't want to post because it was not confirmed. thought people on her who know him personally, call him by his first name and therefore know he is not guilty might shed a light on it. (if the last sentence doesn't apply to you, please ignore - the people know who they are).

Seachmall

davet82 wrote: »

he must wear blinkers to bed...

i'd love to see the bed or its measurments and also to see how dark that room is a night, with a big balcony and windows open i'm sure there would be enough light to at least see two feet in front of you.

Even if he glanced at the bed to see if she was there he might have believed he saw her outline. I'm pretty sure we've all had similar experiences going to bed or getting up in the night. You see an outline of something (or a number of different things) and think it's something it's not.


I'm not saying this is what happened, but its entirely possible imo.

davet82

Bacchus wrote: »

It can happen to the best of us when you've a sleepy head on ya. This all happened in the middle of the night. I've woken up some mornings (when it's relatively bright) and not realised my partner wasn't in the bed next to me until I hear her pottering around downstairs

Also, without his legs, he does have a lower vantage point.

I'm sure those questions you bring up will come out in court though so you'll get an answer eventually

ever woken up thinkinng there was an intruder in your house and not bother you arse to see if your loved ones are ok/is it them? big difference than waking up on a sleepy sunday

i still dont buy his story, the guy is used to having no legs and i'm sure his bed would be customed to his height also (persumtion not fact) so he knows hie vantage points at this stage i'm sure

fishy fishy

fishy fishy wrote: »

i had read yesterday that it was not legal, and then I read that he was first declined when he applied for it for some reason, and then i heard that he has applications in for six or seven more firearms, but didn't want to post because it was not confirmed. thought people on her who know him personally, call him by his first name and therefore know he is not guilty might shed a light on it. (if the last sentence doesn't apply to you, please ignore - the people know who they are).

You ignored Seamus's post and my post calling you out on what you keep on saying, would you mind replying to those posts and stop posting the same thing over and over again without sources? Do you even have a link for what you claim you read yesterday?

allthedoyles

There was an Iphone 4 and an Iphone 5 on the shower mat in Bathroom .

Its unlikely they were left there for the burglars .

And Reeva was dressed in shorts and top .- Not nightwear.

robinph

fishy fishy wrote: »

i had read yesterday that it was not legal, and then I read that he was first declined when he applied for it for some reason, and then i heard that he has applications in for six or seven more firearms, but didn't want to post because it was not confirmed. thought people on her who know him personally, call him by his first name and therefore know he is not guilty might shed a light on it. (if the last sentence doesn't apply to you, please ignore - the people know who they are).

There was something about some .38 ammo that was not licensed. That is now said to be his fathers and being stored. Don't know if him storing that ammo is within the license terms or not.
No suggestions that I've seen about the 9mm not being legitimately licensed or kept outside of the terms of the license.

What are you now suggesting that people are claiming he is "not guilty" of? Have you caught up with what this discussion, the bail hearing and the trial will be about?

davet82

Seachmall wrote: »

Even if he glanced at the bed to see if she was there he might have believed he saw her outline. I'm pretty sure we've all had similar experiences going to bed or getting up in the night. You see an outline of something (or a number of different things) and think it's something it's not.


I'm not saying this is what happened, but its entirely possible imo.

ok before you shoot someone you think you would really check but lets say panic set in or adrenaline, the prick shot her dead recklessly he deserves a long time in prison regardless of his cock and bull story imo

opinion guy

fishy fishy wrote: »

i had read yesterday that it was not legal, and then I read that he was first declined when he applied for it for some reason, and then i heard that he has applications in for six or seven more firearms, but didn't want to post because it was not confirmed. thought people on her who know him personally, call him by his first name and therefore know he is not guilty might shed a light on it. (if the last sentence doesn't apply to you, please ignore - the people know who they are).

If thats directed at me I only called him Oscar once that I can recall and that was purely because I got fed up typing Pistorious all the time.

Nobody on here claims to know him.

And nobody but nobody has stated he did not kill her - a fact you have been called out on numerous times and refuse to acknowledge. Those of us you are arguing with are judging the two versions based on the evidence - as opposed to preconceived notions

Simply put - you are biased.

davet82

allthedoyles wrote: »

There was an Iphone 4 and an Iphone 5 on the shower mat in Bathroom .

Its unlikely they were left there for the burglars .

And Reeva was dressed in shorts and top .- Not nightwear.

top and shorts, i thought that was strange myself but my GF would sleep in something that would resemble that so maybe not so strange unless the shorts were denim, even then what does that mean?

seenitall

Bacchus wrote: »

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

What's a giveaway? How does it matter to the case whether he shouted or not? It doesn't matter one jot as it can't be proven or disproven that he did.

davet82

davet82 wrote: »

ok before you shoot someone you think you would really check but lets say panic set in or adrenaline, the prick shot her dead recklessly he deserves a long time in prison regardless of his cock and bull story imo

No need to call names, while he may have done it on purpose, he may not have. We do not know. We can make guesses from press releases and such but we simply do not know the full story. We may never know.

wonderfullife

Does anybody else not find it extremely distasteful that his lawyer arrived at the house before the police got there?

In terms of state of mind, if someone has genuinely made a tragic mistake and killed a person they love, surely the only people you would want to call are an ambulance. He didn't even do that, he called his manager first, told him to ring an ambulance.

I find it extremely distasteful to say the least. Shows, to my mind, even in a state of "panic" he retained the calmness to put his self-interests in front of a dying woman he claims to have loved.

opinion guy

allthedoyles wrote: »

There was an Iphone 4 and an Iphone 5 on the shower mat in Bathroom .

Its unlikely they were left there for the burglars .

and....this proves what ???

And Reeva was dressed in shorts and top .- Not nightwear.

Many people wear shorts and top in bed

davet82 wrote: »

ok before you shoot someone you think you would really check but lets say panic set in or adrenaline, the prick shot her dead recklessly he deserves a long time in prison regardless of his cock and bull story imo

Now there you have a point. But you must agree - that would not be premeditated murder of his girlfriend. Would it ? That is the crux of the issue

Seachmall

davet82 wrote: »

ok before you shoot someone you think you would really check but lets say panic set in or adrenaline, the prick shot her dead recklessly he deserves a long time in prison regardless of his cock and bull story imo

Look at it this way.

1. She gets up and goes to the bathroom.
2. He wakes up a few moments later and walks out to the balcony.
3. He walks back in and hears a noise in the bathroom.
4. He remembers the window is open and he lives in S.A. (and is a celebrity).
5. He looks at the bed, she's still asleep. It's an intruder.
6. He grabs his gun and proceeds to the bathroom.

All of that is a fairly logical progression. The only problem is, in this scenario, step 5 was a mistake due to a common psychological effect.

If that's what happened then I see no reason why he should be found guilty of premeditated murder.

gramar

davet82 wrote: »

The legs thing is gonna make or break the case. Police say bullets were traveling downwards at a height that contradicts oscar's height. He says he shot with no legs on so lets see what the forensic guys come up with (and i hope to god they are better than SA police!!)

I heard that he had claimed this too. It will be difficult to explain on his part and easy to demonstrate for the prosecution if the trajectory of the bullet holes appear don't match his story.

In fairness every detail of the shooting both from inside the house and witness statements seem to make sense while his explanations do little to
offer a convincing argument otherwise.

davet82

Sacramento wrote: »

No need to call names, while he may have done it on purpose, he may not have. We do not know. We can make guesses from press releases and such but we simply do not know the full story. We may never know.

No guessing at all from press realeases, he has already admitted it. We do know he killed her. I reserve the right to call him a prick for doing it no matter what the circumstance, recklessly shooting off firearms, what was he thinking (i dont buy that 'scared little cripple' story either)

opinion guy

wonderfullife wrote: »

Does anybody else not find it extremely distasteful that his lawyer arrived at the house before the police got there?

Where does his lawyer live ? Where is the police station ? His lawyer appears very competent, the cops don't. Many possible factors here.

In terms of state of mind, if someone has genuinely made a tragic mistake and killed a person they love, surely the only people you would want to call are an ambulance. He didn't even do that, he called his manager first, told him to ring an ambulance.

I find it extremely distasteful to say the least. Shows, to my mind, even in a state of "panic" he retained the calmness to put his self-interests in front of a dying woman he claims to have loved.

Ok I have to ask - where is this information coming from - I've seen this said numerous times on here, but was it stated in court ? I don't believe it was. I wonder about the accuracy of these claims

davet82

Seachmall wrote: »

If that's what happened then I see no reason why he should be found guilty of premeditated murder.

no not premeditated murder, i think they're pissing against the wind looking for that either way