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

seamus

Seachmall wrote: »

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.

Indeed. And it's dark and he's on his knees (so standing at a height of five feet or less - try it yourself to see how different your bedroom looks). So a glance at the bed and all he can see is the silhouette of the thrown-back covers, which at a glance look like someone in the bed.

opinion guy

gramar wrote: »

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.

Were you paying attention to any of the reporting/live blogging from the courtroom today? The police were caught out in numerous mistakes and inaccuracies - their version makes less sense.

Bacchus

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 .

Relevance?

allthedoyles wrote: »

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

I think you'll find that people's definition of "nightwear" varies. Shorts and a top is perfectly fine in a hot climate like SA.

fishy fishy

Sacramento wrote: »

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?

sorry, what do I keep on saying - that he killed her. he did. end of.

why you getting to heated up? the guy took a life - you can't change it no matter how hard you try.

I think maybe he has a little "god" complex about himself - just my opinion on what I've heard so far on the case. I can't believe that he cannot understand how he is bring tried for murder, never mind pre-meditated murder. Ah if only life was that easy for everyone.

fishy fishy

Sacramento wrote: »

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?

who's seamus?

robinph

gramar wrote: »

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.

You must have missed the bit after the investigating officer gave his statements for the prosecution where he was then ripped apart by the defence as basically having zero evidence. Think he even stated at one point that Pistouris statement of what happened didn't conflict with anything they found out the scene.

opinion guy

fishy fishy wrote: »

who's seamus?

Look up

fishy fishy

opinion guy wrote: »

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.

LOL - call it what you want, but he did kill her - he is guilty - you know that don't ya.

opinion guy

fishy fishy wrote: »

LOL - call it what you want, but he did kill her - he is guilty - you know that don't ya.

YES by his own admission he killed her.


Killing someone does not automatically equal premeditated murder - do you comprehend that point ?

Are you even reading what people are writing ?

fishy fishy

fishy fishy wrote: »

sorry, what do I keep on saying - that he killed her. he did. end of.

why you getting to heated up? the guy took a life - you can't change it no matter how hard you try.

I'm not trying to change people minds to make them believe he did not kill her!?

Yes we all know he killed her, he said he did. You claimed that people on this thread would have people believe otherwise, you never backed up that claim. Nor have you posted any sources for what you constantly claim you have "read" in relation to this case, which I could almost safely assume is nothing based on the garbage you have been posting.

robinph

fishy fishy wrote: »

LOL - call it what you want, but he did kill her - he is guilty - you know that don't ya.

This is getting tedious. He killed her. Nobody disputes that.



But you don't seem to be aware of what this thread is discussing.

fishy fishy

robinph wrote: »

You must have missed the bit after the investigating officer gave his statements for the prosecution where he was then ripped apart by the defence as basically having zero evidence. Think he even stated at one point that Pistouris statement of what happened didn't conflict with anything they found out the scene.

thats what rich defenses are paid to do - the more money the better. the prosecution have yet to do all their forensic tests - this is just step one. let the truth begin.

fishy fishy

opinion guy wrote: »

YES by his own admission he killed her.


Killing someone does not automatically equal premeditated murder - do you comprehend that point ?

Are you even reading what people are writing ?

yes I am - your point?

are you sure your don't know this guy? You're getting very very heated up about it.

fishy fishy

robinph wrote: »

This is getting tedious. He killed her. Nobody disputes that.



But you don't seem to be aware of what this thread is discussing.

on the contrary

I think posters on here are glossing over/looking for anything to gloss over the points to try to convince themselves that somebody like this could never do such a thing.

the truth will out.

robinph

fishy fishy wrote: »

yes I am - your point?

are you sure your don't know this guy? You're getting very very heated up about it.

What are you trying to claim that Pistouris is guilty of?

fishy fishy wrote: »

on the contrary

I think posters on here are glossing over/looking for anything to gloss over the points to try to convince themselves that somebody like this could never do such a thing.

the truth will out.

What are we trying to say he's not guilty of?


Edit: Just trying to figure out if you know what point you are arguing.

wonderfullife

The prosecution were ripped apart today but i would argue that is more a reflection on the SA legal system than on the strength of their case.

The poor girl lost her life 6 days ago. The police investigation is in its infancy. There is no way any police force in the world would have conducted and completed a full investigation in that time frame. You have forensics, statements, interviews, etc etc it's a long process to get to a concluded investigation.

The problem here is 2-fold:

1. The speed with which he is charged with pre-meditated murder on the basis of a partial investigation is questionable.

2. The bail hearings in SA are a joke. The cross-examination of the "evidence" during a bail hearing is a complete nonsense. This has become a mini-trial in itself, when really the only issue at stake right now is bail - not his innocence or guilt of the charge.

opinion guy

fishy fishy wrote: »

yes I am - your point?

are you sure your don't know this guy? You're getting very very heated up about it.

Bold letters don't mean I'm getting heated up - I was merely hoping the larger text would have more chance to make it through your selective visual fields.

Pretty sure I don't know the most famous paralympian on the planet. Seems like something I would remember

fishy fishy

opinion guy wrote: »

Bold letters don't mean I'm getting heated up - I was merely hoping the larger text would have more chance to make it through your selective visual fields.

Pretty sure I don't know the most famous paralympian on the planet. Seems like something I would remember

just thought I'd ask - you seemed a bit too het up about it for just being an ordinary joe soap looking at the news.

fishy fishy

robinph wrote: »

What are you trying to claim that Pistouris is guilty of?



What are we trying to say he's not guilty of?


Edit: Just trying to figure out if you know what point you are arguing.

look up

Seachmall

fishy fishy wrote: »

I think posters on here are glossing over/looking for anything to gloss over the points to try to convince themselves that somebody like this could never do such a thing.

Posters on here are discussing if the prosecution's evidence contradicts Pistorius' statement.

Posters are also discussing if, in their own opinion, he is guilty of premeditated murder.


Nobody, except you, is discussing if he killed her or not.

seamus

I think at this stage the best course of action is to stop responding to fishy fishy. He's either trying to just have a laugh at everyone else's expense or he really does live on his own little planet.

davet82

wonderfullife wrote: »

This has become a mini-trial in itself, when really the only issue at stake right now is bail - not his innocence or guilt of the charge.

mission accomplished i reckon after todays performance

fishy fishy

wonderfullife wrote: »

The prosecution were ripped apart today but i would argue that is more a reflection on the SA legal system than on the strength of their case.

The poor girl lost her life 6 days ago. The police investigation is in its infancy. There is no way any police force in the world would have conducted and completed a full investigation in that time frame. You have forensics, statements, interviews, etc etc it's a long process to get to a concluded investigation.

The problem here is 2-fold:

1. The speed with which he is charged with pre-meditated murder on the basis of a partial investigation is questionable.

2. The bail hearings in SA are a joke. The cross-examination of the "evidence" during a bail hearing is a complete nonsense. This has become a mini-trial in itself, when really the only issue at stake right now is bail - not his innocence or guilt of the charge.

i think I mentioned something like this in a previous post - this is just a bail hearing - the true forensics have not even started yet. the truth will out, and remember there is only one victim here - the poor girl.

robinph

fishy fishy wrote: »

look up

At what?

Explain your position/ opinion in this as so far you are just evading questions.

fishy fishy

seamus wrote: »

I think at this stage the best course of action is to stop responding to fishy fishy. He's either trying to just have a laugh at everyone else's expense or he really does live on his own little planet.

are you for real?

I'm not asking anyone to reply to me - that is entirely up to each individual on here. Because you don't agree/like what I am saying or because i don't agree with you, you are not trying to get other posters to form a posse with you to ignore my posts.

if you don't like my posts, or if they are getting to you just ignore them. don't try to whip up everyone else to form a clique. not very mature.

you know if I was only a kid on here (which I'm not by the way), do you know how that would come across. Be careful - take responsibility for your own posts and replies. do not try to form a "group" of people who think the same to Ignore or go against someone who thinks different.

fishy fishy

robinph wrote: »

At what?

Explain your position/ opinion in this as so far you are just evading questions.

if you look up all the news items from all the different papers/journos, you too can find out information not on sky news or rte news. Its up to yourself - I did it, you can too, if you are that interested.

robinph

fishy fishy wrote: »

if you look up all the news items from all the different papers/journos, you too can find out information not on sky news or rte news. Its up to yourself - I did it, you can too, if you are that interested.

What?

Bacchus

fishy fishy wrote: »

if you look up all the news items from all the different papers/journos, you too can find out information not on sky news or rte news. Its up to yourself - I did it, you can too, if you are that interested.

You do realise that the text you quoted and your response are entirely unrelated. Quoting someone who asks you something and then going off on a completely random tangent is not the same as answering their question.

At this point I think you are just trolling and entertaining yourself with nonsensical posts.

AudreyHepburn

I think some posters are missing or ignoring the point here.

The issue is not whether or Pistorius killed Reeva Steenkamp. He did and he is not disputing that from what I can tell.

The issue is whether it was a premediated killing or accidental as he claims.

Certain posters would do well to remember that killing some-one does not equal murdering them.

wonderfullife

The issue at stake right now, bail, should have been dealt with swiftly and easily. He's accused of a violent crime and the prosecution argue he is a flight risk. On the flip side he has no criminal record, is one of the most recognisable faces in the world and denies intent to murder -so legging it to a country with no extradition to SA is not likely. It should really be as simple as the Judge weighing that up and saying either no bail or grant bail, surrender your passport, restricted to certain areas, report to police stations etc. Standard procedure.

The evidence in the case, the "story" of the case from both sides should be nowhere near the courtroom right now. The police investigation is nowhere near complete and the full trial is months away. Most countries and jurisdictions don't allow this nonsense to go on during a bail hearing.

fishy fishy

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I think some posters are missing or ignoring the point here.

The issue is not whether or Pistorius killed Reeva Steenkamp. He did and he is not disputing that from what I can tell.

The issue is whether it was a premediated killing or accidental as he claims.

Certain posters would do well to remember that killing some-one does not equal murdering them.

i refer you, and your "cronies" to post 626. :rolleyes:

Micky Dolenz

fishy fishy wrote: »

i refer you, and your "cronies" to post 626. :rolleyes:

Mod

Enough of the flaming please.

davet82

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

Mod

Enough of the flaming please.

Ojection! I would like fishys posts stricken from the record

robinph

Yep, should be as simple as is he a flight risk or risk of re-offending whilst on bail.

The flight risk is a cause for concern as he'll obviously have assets to call on if her were to do a runner, but they can't stick an ankle bracelet on him to track his movements. Get him to hand over both his passports, post X million Rand bail and report daily to police station should work though.

Risk of re-offending is next to zero.

Take all firearms off him and cancel any licenses.

There really is no need for this carry on with the evidence at the moment.

seamus

Indeed. It was put to the prosecutor that OP was an internationally recognised athlete as well as being a double amputee who used very distinctive prosthetics to get around, and whose career (and therefore livelihood) relied on defending the murder charge. And based on this, did the police really think he was a legitimate flight risk? Of course, the prosecutor seriously answered "Yes" and the courtroom burst into laughter.

It would take a lot of work to smuggle OP out of SA to an non-extradition country.

AudreyHepburn

fishy fishy wrote: »

i refer you, and your "cronies" to post 626. :rolleyes:

Less of the rolleyes please. it's unecessary.

That post has no relevence to the topic at hand.

Wossack

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Less of the rolleyes please. it's unecessary.

That post has no relevence to the topic at hand.

Audrey, meet fishy
fishy, Audrey

davet82

seamus wrote: »

It would take a lot of work to smuggle OP out of SA to an non-extradition country.

SA has a huge border and coastline, he could be got out if they wished. As for non-extradition countries, is that not pretty much every country when it come to SA i'm guessing? Lets remember their governments weren't that popular a few years back.

Likelyhood of him doing a runner probably quite small though tbh seeing he would be hounded, although strangers things have happened (like his story for one )

seamus

davet82 wrote: »

SA has a huge border and coastline, he could be got out if they wished. As for non-extradition countries, is that not pretty much every country when it come to SA i'm guessing? Lets remember they their governments weren't that popular a few years back.

I checked it out. Of the countries they border with, the only two without an extradition agreement are Zimbabwe and Mozambique.

Personally I would rather stay in SA and fight a murder charge than try to set up residence in either of those countries.

I'm sure he has quite a bit of wealth, but that'll only go so far. With no ability to generate further wealth, he'd be left with a very bleak future in many countries.

Rascasse

The reason for this carry on is that yesterday the magistrate ruled that the premeditated charge was appropriate. That usually means no bail unless his legal team can prove exceptional circumstances exist. They are doing that by showing the case has holes in it, also by saying that he is so famous and has so much to lose that he can't escape.

The average Joe Soap would have been remanded within 10 minutes.

Micky Dolenz

seamus wrote: »

I checked it out. Of the countries they border with, the only two without an extradition agreement are Zimbabwe and Mozambique.

Personally I would rather stay in SA and fight a murder charge than try to set up residence in either of those countries.

I'm sure he has quite a bit of wealth, but that'll only go so far. With no ability to generate further wealth, he'd be left with a very bleak future in many countries.

Weigh it up with the possibility of spending the rest of your life in a SA gaol.

I don't know, I would certainly consider jumping bail.

robinph

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

Weigh it up with the possibility of spending the rest of your life in a SA gaol.

I don't know, I would certainly consider jumping bail.

To spend your time as a cripple in Zimbabwe? He's not going to have access to decent replacement legs when his current ones get stolen from him for scrap metal.

davet82

robinph wrote: »

To spend your time as a cripple in Zimbabwe? He's not going to have access to decent replacement legs when his current ones get stolen from him for scrap metal.

What about Brazil, I hear they treat on-the-run millionares pretty good

robinph

davet82 wrote: »

What about Brazil, I hear they treat on-the-run millionares pretty good

He'd have to row across as there is no way he could take a plane without being spotted. Think the legs might get corroded in the salt water on the way.

Micky Dolenz

robinph wrote: »

To spend your time as a cripple in Zimbabwe? He's not going to have access to decent replacement legs when his current ones get stolen from him for scrap metal.

Once he is out of SA it would be relatively easy to get around so he wouldn't even need to stay in Africa.

Rascasse

seamus wrote: »

I checked it out. Of the countries they border with, the only two without an extradition agreement are Zimbabwe and Mozambique.

He'd have to go further than that. There may not be a treaty but there would be a mechanism to extradite, particularly from Zim.

seamus

Rascasse wrote: »

He'd have to go further than that. There may not be a treaty but there would be a mechanism to extradite, particularly from Zim.

There seems to be something going on with Zimbabwe alright, just not anything official.

Most of the countries you could go to would have no shortage of people who would happily kidnap OP and bring him back to SA to claim a reward. Especially within Africa where you could transport him over land unobstructed by bribing a few people.

books4sale

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.

...if we all carried weapons, which we thankfully don't, and went around our houses in the early hours of the morning looking for intruders at the slightest noise.

I'd have the wife shot at the fridge drinking a carton of milk

The kids shot on the pisspot for taking an early morning leak

..and the dog shot for just being an ould mope around the corridors.

I just don't get the 'shoot first, ask questions later' brigade, there is something out of sorts with a fella who automatically jumps to the conclusion, - its an intruder, i'll pepper the chap with bullets.

Never once did he consider it might be a friend, family member or they're safety, there's clearly an arrogance about it. Whether it be on the streets or in his own home, that's why he is a unhinged danger to the public and should be locked away.

robinph

seamus wrote: »

There seems to be something going on with Zimbabwe alright, just not anything official.

Most of the countries you could go to would have no shortage of people who would happily kidnap OP and bring him back to SA to claim a reward. Especially within Africa where you could transport him over land unobstructed by bribing a few people.

If he was to make it to Europe, where he allegedly has access to further resources such as bank accounts and houses so making it a possible destination, I think he'd soon get sent back again. He wouldn't be able to earn a living in Europe for running if he's skipped bail like that.

Rascasse

robinph wrote: »

He wouldn't be able to earn a living in Europe for running if he's skipped bail like that.

I suspect his career is over anyway unless he is acquitted of all charges.