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

opinion guy

Pudders wrote: »

I actually thought you were giving fairly reasonable and sound arguements as to why he may be innocent throughout the thread but you are now being blinded completely and ignoring any fact which doesn't agree with you.

Examples of me ignoring facts I don't agree with please

seenitall

Bacchus wrote: »

You just keep saying it's your opinion but when anyone questions it, you have nothing to back it up.

What exactly is it that you are saying is relevant to the case? Unless I've missed something, you are referring to the "murderers have walked free before" post you made earlier? Correct me if I'm wrong.

Sorry, getting kind of tired of talking in circles. But I'll try one more time: I have said time and again now I don't have any evidence to 'back it up' (I wasn't there or am embroiled with the intricacies of the case, I can just go on by what I read);

I just believe his story sounds completely implausible for any human being's reaction in such a situation as he says he was placed in, fabricated to the hilt and is made up of lies to get a murderer off the hook.

Not good enough for you? Fine, join a queue. (I'm not asking for your approval of my opinions, by the way.)

And yes, murderers have walked free before and will again, as will probably this one, so in my opinion, of course that's relevant to this case.

opinion guy

fullstop wrote: »

Of course you're allowed to question their beliefs. Maybe try bein less co condescending about it.

I was answering Seamus's assertion that you wouldn't be able to hear shouting from 300m away. Am I wrong?

I'm not being condascending I am challenging them with logic. If they can't handle that again not my issue.

Ah a logical question - thanks. As you well know you could be wrong or you could be right depending on the circumstances. Seamus chose the example of Grafton street, you chose rural or a small village. Seems like Pistorious lives in neither of those - yes ? Therefore I put it do you that given that the witness was 300-600m away and is said not to have been able to identify the voices - at the moment this is not strong evidence. this may change of course when the trial comes around. I'm sure they will measure the distance and question the beejeesus out of the witness. But at the moment this is not really strong evidence to support a premeditation claim - is it ?

Pudders

opinion guy wrote: »

He kicked someone out of his house who refused to leave and in the process she got hurt. Is that a history of domestic violence ??? Well definitely not because he wasn't sharing a home with her so by definition its not domestic violence. The charges were also dropped.

Its also a long, LONG way from that to shooting your girlfriend of 2 months in the middle of the night, your girlfriend whom by friends accounts you are deeply in love with, happy with and planning to marry - and in the process throwing away your own life/career/fans/achievements - don't you think ?

Sorry I was only giving you evidence which you requested of him slamming a door on a girl. The article did the whole domestic abuse thing.

Yes along way from domestic abuse but that wasn't the point. He did slam a door on a girl which you asked to prove.

As for the whole love stories - these have all come from the defence. How come there hasn't been stories coming from his family about how much they were in love. How come none of his family went to the funeral if it was such a terrible accident?

The defence and his pr team have had a field day so far. The trial is montsh off but we are to expect that the defence would have a water tight case already?

seenitall

Bacchus wrote: »

Wow! Just wow. Screw the evidence, this guy is clearly guilty.

Again, what's with all the drama, B?

I never said screw the evidence, I just said (in not so many words) that I don't need to be looking at any incontrovertible evidence to form an opinion (which I have).

Pudders

opinion guy wrote: »

Examples of me ignoring facts I don't agree with please

Evidnce that he slammed a door on a girl.

Gosub

Bacchus wrote: »

Wow! Just wow. Screw the evidence, this guy is clearly guilty.

I don't believe that evidence is as crucial as you seem to believe. Evidence can be fabricated to support a story. I believe that many a person has been jailed based on evidence fabricated by governments. I also believe that people have walked free based on evidence fabricated to support their story.

I believe that Oscar killed her and meant to do so. I don't have to prove that to you or anyone else. It's simply what I believe based on the story so far and on common sense.

These are my beliefs. I am entitled to hold them. I don't have to prove them. If solid facts emerge to change my mind. I will do so. However, I find that unlikely.

Should all you lawyers and barristers not be in court or something?

fullstop

opinion guy wrote: »

I'm not being condascending I am challenging them with logic. If they can't handle that again not my issue.

Ah a logical question - thanks. As you well know you could be wrong or you could be right depending on the circumstances. Seamus chose the example of Grafton street, you chose rural or a small village. Seems like Pistorious lives in neither of those - yes ? Therefore I put it do you that given that the witness was 300-600m away and is said not to have been able to identify the voices - at the moment this is not strong evidence. this may change of course when the trial comes around. I'm sure they will measure the distance and question the beejeesus out of the witness. But at the moment this is not really strong evidence to support a premeditation claim - is it ?

Well I wouldn't like to see your posting style if you were trying to be condescending.

Well, having spent quite a lot of time in a gated private estate similar to this in South Africa, I think I have every right to question the Grafton Street scenario - don't you?

In my experience, there is never a sound in these estates late at night, except for grasshoppers. Please point out to me where I said this was strong evidence to support a premeditation claim? If it is verified, of course it could back up the claim.

karma_

opinion guy wrote: »

Karma can you answer this please:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=83326566&postcount=815

I could accept it was a crime of passion over something he had planned in advance.

seamus

fullstop wrote: »

I was answering Seamus's assertion that you wouldn't be able to hear shouting from 300m away. Am I wrong?

On a golf course at 300m (330yds) you may hear shouting on a very calm day, but you'd have no idea where it came from. Of course he doesn't live on a golf course.

Look at the attached. This a circle roughly 300m in radius with Pistorious's house in the middle. The person who allegedly heard the shouting lives somewhere outside this circle. Do you honestly think this person could have heard screaming and have been able to say with any kind of certainty that it came from Pistorious's house? Not only that, they appear to be the only person who heard this. None of the other 20 or 30 houses within that 300m circle heard anything, even though the screaming was allegedly so loud that it could be heard 300m away.
There are two houses practically next door and it was a warm night (29 degrees). Even if those residents had been asleep, they would have heard a screaming match taking place next door with the doors open.

The "eyewitness" is far more implausible than Pistorius's statement.

up for anything

I just wonder why she felt the need to lock the bathroom door when taking a middle of the night pee - it's not normally something a person would do unless they were sharing a room with people they weren't intimate with, especially in the middle of the night.

Seachmall

Gosub wrote: »

I don't believe that evidence is as crucial as you seem to believe.

It's kind of crucial when deciding the next 15 years of someone's life.

The rest of your post belongs in a religious debate.

fishy fishy

Bacchus wrote: »

I think people the defense team and the killers supporters are picking and choosing what they want to hear so that it fits their image of a violent victim with a temper lilly white record who murdered his girlfriend a bathroom door in cold blood.

This thread has been going round in circles for a while now with noone able to back up their "he's a murderer" it was an accident claims with a single shred of evidence presented at the bail hearing. Pistorius's story line is still not holding. Not Up to the prosecution to present evidence that disputes that yet, after all this its not the trial. They haven't so far, but they will, so how so many people here are convinced that he's guilty innocent beggars belief.

FYP

seenitall

Seachmall wrote: »

The rest of your post belongs in a religious debate.

LOL Top marks for condescension!

Seachmall

seenitall wrote: »

LOL Top marks for condescension!

It's a post entirely worthy of my best efforts.

seenitall

Seachmall wrote: »

It's a post entirely worthy of my best efforts.

And your best efforts are plenty good enough, IMHO.

Gosub

Seachmall wrote: »

It's kind of crucial when deciding the next 15 years of someone's life.

The rest of your post belongs in a religious debate.

Evidence is indeed crucial, which is why it is sometimes fabricated. A means to an end, if you like.

I think you might have missed the point of the rest of my post.

People are airing their beliefs here and other people are trying to force them to prove them, with evidence. They seem to think that this is a courtroom and they are conducting a trial. It's a forum and posters are entitled to express their feelings. Lighten up a bit.

fullstop

seamus wrote: »

On a golf course at 300m (330yds) you may hear shouting on a very calm day, but you'd have no idea where it came from. Of course he doesn't live on a golf course.

Did I say he lived on a golf course? He doesn't live on Grafton Street either, does he?

seamus

fullstop wrote: »

Did I say he lived on a golf course? He doesn't live on Grafton Street either, does he?

You see, it's called progressing the discussion. I accepted that he neither lived on Grafton St or on a golf course, so as specific examples they're not really useful. So I provided an actual aerial photo of the location so we can have a relevant discussion about it.

Seachmall

Gosub wrote: »

People are airing their beliefs here and other people are trying to force them to prove them, with evidence. They seem to think that this is a courtroom and they are conducting a trial. It's a forum and posters are entitled to express their feelings. Lighten up a bit.

I'm just wondering why anyone would argue their position knowing full well they're not willing to support it.



And I find the idea that you don't need reason or evidence to support your own opinion contemptuous. But that's neither here nor there.

mondeo

If he is not granted bail this is where he has to go.......http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/oscar-pistorius/9884500/Oscar-Pistorius-inside-Pretoria-Central-Prison.html

twinQuins

Gosub wrote: »

Evidence is indeed crucial, which is why it is sometimes fabricated. A means to an end, if you like.

I think you might have missed the point of the rest of my post.

People are airing their beliefs here and other people are trying to force them to prove them, with evidence. They seem to think that this is a courtroom and they are conducting a trial. It's a forum and posters are entitled to express their feelings. Lighten up a bit.

And other people are just as entitled to ask questions. Lighten up a bit.

Gosub

Seachmall wrote: »

I'm just wondering why anyone would argue their position knowing full well they're not willing to support it.



And I find the idea that you don't need reason or evidence to support your own opinion contemptuous. But that's neither here nor there.

I can't prove he's guilty, you can't prove he's not. It's not up to you or I to prove anything.

I didn't say I had no reason. Call it gut feeling, call it common sense. Call it whatever you want. Shock, horror, people tell lies to save their asses. :eek: Doesn't mean I have to believe everything I read or hear. The Indo and Sun are perfect examples.

Contempt, huh? You must be a wonderful human being.

Gosub

twinQuins wrote: »

And other people are just as entitled to ask questions. Lighten up a bit.

Y'see, I wouldn't have a problem if they were just questions. The demands for evidence to back up their feelings is just surreal.

seenitall

Seachmall wrote: »

I'm just wondering why anyone would argue their position knowing full well they're not willing to support it.



And I find the idea that you don't need reason or evidence to support your own opinion contemptuous. But that's neither here nor there.

Those opinions are supported, just not in the way you would like them to be (or the way they are in court, for the most part, but we are not in court.)

And I find the arrogant way that some posters go on on here as if they are entitled to be supplied with the latest, hardest evidence by others who are only reading the news same as themselves and are simply expressing their opinions (acting out their secret solicitor fantasies perhaps)... well, arrogant and contemptuous.

Seachmall

Gosub wrote: »

I can't prove he's guilty, you can't prove he's not.

I don't have to prove he's not to support my point.

It's not up to you or I to prove anything.

No, but in a discussion it's generally recommended to provide reasons in order to support your position with the aim of furthering the discussion.

Call it gut feeling, call it common sense. Call it whatever you want.

I've got plenty of things to call it, "valid reason" is not one of them though.

You must be a wonderful human being.

Thanks, I appreciate that.

seenitall wrote: »

Those opinions are supported, just not in the way you would like them to be (or the way they are in court, for the most part, but we are not in court.)

The way I'd like them to be? You mean objectively and with evidence.

And I find the arrogant way that some posters go on on here as if they are entitled to be supplied with the latest, hardest evidence by others who are only reading the news same as themselves and are simply expressing their opinions (acting out their secret solicitor fantasies perhaps)... well, arrogant and contemptuous.

If you take pride in relying on nothing but "common sense" or "gut feelings" to form opinions which you then attempt to express as the truth I have no time for you.

fullstop

seamus wrote: »

You see, it's called progressing the discussion. I accepted that he neither lived on Grafton St or on a golf course, so as specific examples they're not really useful. So I provided an actual aerial photo of the location so we can have a relevant discussion about it.

Well clearly the story has holes in it, from all directions. And yes, it's not exactly conclusive evidence! But as I said, if it can be corroborated then it could help to piece together what went on. I'm only following this story on here for the most part, I don't really have time to follow the court case closely so I'm just picking on certain points.

I think the one thing everyone can agree on is that the case is a farce and the police have done themselves no favours...if they are actually looking for a conviction.

Gosub

Seachmall wrote: »

I don't have to prove he's not to support my point.No, but in a discussion it's generally recommended to provide reasons in order to support your position with the aim of furthering the discussion.

I've got plenty of things to call it, "valid reason" is not one of them though.

Thanks, I appreciate that.

... in your opinion.

Appreciation noted.

Seachmall

Gosub wrote: »

... in your opinion.

Are you suggesting that "gut feeling" not being a valid reason is simply my opinion?

seenitall

Seachmall wrote: »

If you take pride in relying on nothing but "common sense" or "gut feelings" to form opinions which you then attempt to express as the truth I have no time for you.

Thanks, I've had a look at some of your posting history and the feeling is entirely mutual.

Gosub

Seachmall wrote: »

Are you suggesting that "gut feeling" not being a valid reason is simply my opinion?

It's not just gut feeling. It's common sense. It's an understanding of how the world turns.

I could base an opinion of you based on the tone of your last few posts, without any other evidence to back it up. I wonder if I would be far from the truth.

Bacchus

seenitall wrote: »

Again, what's with all the drama, B?

I never said screw the evidence, I just said (in not so many words) that I don't need to be looking at any incontrovertible evidence to form an opinion (which I have).

"I never said screw the evidence"
...
"I just said (in not so many words) that I don't need to be looking at any incontrovertible evidence to form an opinion"

Isn't that the same thing? You're basically saying you don't need evidence to form your opinion.

Seachmall

Gosub wrote: »

It's not just gut feeling. It's common sense. It's an understanding of how the world turns.

It's a bias.

I could base an opinion of you based on the tone of your last few posts, without any other evidence to back it up. I wonder if I would be far from the truth.

I think your opinion on the tone of my last few posts was influenced by my explicit statement of feeling contemptuous.

Had I been more pleasant your "gut feeling" would've been wrong.

robinph

Prosecution now doing their closing statement regarding the bail application, defence already having had their go.

Magistrate will probably not get round to making a decision until tomorrow still though.

Gosub

Seachmall wrote: »

I think your opinion on the tone of my last few posts was influenced by my explicit statement of feeling contemptuous.

Had I been more pleasant your "gut feeling" would've been wrong.

I think you're wrong. That was only one post.

So, you think my gut feeling of you might be correct?

seenitall

Bacchus wrote: »

"I never said screw the evidence"
...
"I just said (in not so many words) that I don't need to be looking at any incontrovertible evidence to form an opinion"

Isn't that the same thing? You're basically saying you don't need evidence to form your opinion.

No, it's not the same thing. I'll try again.

I don't need evidence to form an opinion, but that doesn't mean I'm saying screw the evidence.

If the evidence in favour of the O.P.'s concoction of a story that I deem to be compelling (I have read about none compelling to me so far) turns up at some point in the trial, I will be only happy to change my opinion.

It may be difficult for you to believe, but regarding this I would like nothing better than that he didn't murder her in a fit of rage, not least for the benefit of a grieving family.

However, at this point, I remain deeply unconvinced by his story. (And I also predicted that this will stay that way, to be fair, as this is how far-fetched and absurd his version reads to me.)

Seachmall

Gosub wrote: »

I think you're wrong. That was only one post.

Me: "Here are my express feelings and opinions on the matter".

You: "My gut feeling tells me these are your express feelings and opinions on the matter".




:pac:

radharc

I must be missing something here. Why on earth would a burglar break into someone's house then lock themselves in the bathroom? His story just sounds so implausible it's almost comical.


However as others have said it will be a tough job to prove intent.

Seachmall

radharc wrote: »

Why on earth would a burglar break into someone's house then lock themselves in the bathroom?

I don't think he knew the door was locked when he fired into it.

robinph

seenitall wrote: »

No, it's not the same thing. I'll try again.

I don't need evidence to form an opinion, but that doesn't mean I'm saying screw the evidence.

If the evidence in favour of the O.P.'s concoction of a story that I deem to be compelling (I have read about none compelling to me so far) turns up at some point in the trial, I will be only happy to change my opinion.

It may be difficult for you to believe, but regarding this I would like nothing better than that he didn't murder her in a fit of rage, not least for the benefit of a grieving family.

However, at this point, I remain deeply unconvinced by his story. (And I also predicted that this will stay that way, to be fair, as this is how far-fetched and absurd his version reads to me.)

I'm less convinced by the prosecutions story than his, which I agree could fall down in any number of places with relative ease. The fact that the prosecution haven't even tweaked any of those loose threads in his story does not suggest to me that they have anything up their sleeves to turn things around in their direction later.

Pre-meditated murder, they have absolutely nothing to back up that story with.
Fit of rage went wrong, they could potentially come up with something to back that charge, but neighbours as witnesses and physical evidence on the body or in the house are missing.
That leave Pistouris story as the most likely at present. Yes it has questions over it, but nothing like the questions over the other potential charges.

fishy fishy

Seachmall wrote: »

If you take pride in relying on nothing but "common sense" or "gut feelings" to form opinions which you then attempt to express as the truth I have no time for you.

hilarious post

robinph

All over for the day again.

Back before the magistrate again for 10am tomorrow.

fishy fishy

radharc wrote: »

I must be missing something here. Why on earth would a burglar break into someone's house then lock themselves in the bathroom? His story just sounds so implausible it's almost comical.

you can't be saying things like that o here radharc - the "cheerleaders" will go ape.

Idioteque

From the prosecution..

"There are two people in the house and you hear a noise. Do you immediately assume it's a burglar and not the person next to you?"

"You want to protect her but you don't even look at her?"

"here was no question of self-defence since Pistorius created the danger by storming the bathroom, says Nel. He created his own feeling of vulnerability."

"The applicant's actions of firing without any indication of a threat are totally improbable"

"He fired four shots, not one shot. The only reason you fire four shots is to kill. On his own version, he's bound to be convicted"

So in the least he's looking at some form of intentional but unplanned murder of a suspected intruder...still all seems very strange about her mobile in the bathroom, balcony door being left open at night (when he lives in fear etc) and that an intruder would lock themselves in that position...most of all, that she wouldn't answer him back...She would know he has a gun and is afraid of an intruder..surely she would shout to ensure no mistaken identity.

Can't believe all this already and it's only the bail hearing!
Also what's the story with Botha!?!?...any fan of 'The Wire' would have known more about preservation of a crime scene than he seems to have!

fishy fishy

Idioteque wrote: »

From the prosecution..

"There are two people in the house and you hear a noise. Do you immediately assume it's a burglar and not the person next to you?"

"You want to protect her but you don't even look at her?"

"here was no question of self-defence since Pistorius created the danger by storming the bathroom, says Nel. He created his own feeling of vulnerability."

"The applicant's actions of firing without any indication of a threat are totally improbable"

"He fired four shots, not one shot. The only reason you fire four shots is to kill. On his own version, he's bound to be convicted"

So in the least he's looking at some form of intentional but unplanned murder of a suspected intruder...still all seems very strange about her mobile in the bathroom, balcony door being left open at night (when he lives in fear etc) and that an intruder would lock themselves in that position...most of all, that she wouldn't answer him back...She would know he has a gun and is afraid of an intruder..surely she would shout to ensure no mistaken identity.

Can't believe all this already and it's only the bail hearing!
Also what's the story with Botha!?!?...any fan of 'The Wire' would have known more about preservation of a crime scene than he seems to have!

very valid points.

tigger123

The squabbling going on in this thread is unbelievable...

robinph

Idioteque wrote: »

So in the least he's looking at some form of intentional but unplanned murder of a suspected intruder...

That would fit all the evidence and his statement. Can't see there being a problem with making that charge stick.

Bacchus

tigger123 wrote: »

The squabbling going on in this thread is unbelievable...

What are you basing that on? Do you have any evidence to support this?

Idioteque

Bacchus wrote: »

What are you basing that on? Do you have any evidence to support this?

Any whatever that evidence is...I'll counter it with well...erm...counter-evidence

aidan24326

Idioteque wrote: »

Also what's the story with Botha!?!?...any fan of 'The Wire' would have known more about preservation of a crime scene than he seems to have!

He's facing attempted murder charges himself for allegedly shooting at passengers in a minibus while drunk and on duty, and the prosecution want him removed.