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

Muff Richardson

Too Tough To Die wrote: »

What song are they talking about?

Shot In The Dark - Ozzy Ozbourne?
Bang Bang (My Baby Shot Me Down) - Nancy Sinatra?
Shot Down In A Blaze Of Glory - BonJovi?

Merkin

seamus wrote: »

Yes!

I think so anyway, from what I recall of the original discussion on this, the law in SA is not much different to here.

Under Irish law, it's all about intent. If you believed there was an intruder behind the door and intended to kill them by shooting at them, then you are guilty of murder, even if the person behind the door in fact wasn't who you thought it was.
The test for murder is all about intent. If you intend to kill someone, and your actions cause you to kill anyone, then you are guilty of murder regardless of who your intended victim was.

Afair, it's exactly the same in SA, and this trial is not about whether he knew Reeva was behind the door, it's about whether he intended to kill the person behind the door. I could be wrong though.

I had a brief chat with a close family member yesterday who's a criminal barrister and I asked him this very thing, he said it is slightly more nuanced than that and has said he'll explain later so I will update you when he fills me in!

Tasden

Its a bit ridiculous all this "you're blaming her", "you say sorry but...", read an argument from anyone over text and you will see that, and OP is right when he says that its just how an argument works.

gramar

If he can make people believe that it's an intruder then self defence can be put forward as a defence which is exactly what he's trying to do.

If it's murder i.e. he knew who was there and killed them then it's plain old murder with no mitigating circumstances which is what the prosecution are alleging.

Call me Al

Tasden wrote: »

Its a bit ridiculous all this "you're blaming her", "you say sorry but...", read an argument from anyone over text and you will see that, and OP is right when he says that its just how an argument works.

I agree, but he does come across as extremely needy and very self-centred.

Straight for the jugular here... Q. Why did you plead not guilty? A. Because I didn't pull the trigger.....

Who discharged it exactly?????

Eta apparently it went off by itself.

Tasden

Call me Al wrote: »

I agree, but he does come across as extremely needy and very self-centred.

Straight for the jugular here... Q. Why did you plead not guilty? A. Because I didn't pull the trigger.....

Who discharged it exactly?????

Eta apparently it went off by itself.

That's not in relation to the reeva shooting is it??

Call me Al

Tasden wrote: »

That's not in relation to the reeva shooting is it??

Oh thanks.

I was beginning to wonder why we were at all.

Tasden

Call me Al wrote: »

Oh thanks.

I was beginning to wonder why we were at all.

I'm watching it on delay after pausing it so dunno if you know now from watching but it was the incident at the restaurant previously.

Merkin

Am I dreaming or did I read somewhere that Steenkamp was actually dressed when she was murdered? If that's the case, surely that in itself is pretty damning evidence?

brimal

So OP is denying he fired the gun in the restaurant, despite OP saying it was in his hand, OP agreeing the gun cannot fire unless the trigger was pressed, despite Roux not cross-examining the expert who claimed this, etc.

He would be better off just admitting he fired it by accident. This farcical refusal to accept responsibility and refuse to give a straight answer will add a bit of cynicism to his evidence for the main crime (killing of Reeva)

robinph

Merkin wrote: »

Am I dreaming or did I read somewhere that Steenkamp was actually dressed when she was murdered? If that's the case, surely that in itself is pretty damning evidence?

What is it damning evidence of?

Muff Richardson

brimal wrote: »

So OP is denying he fired the gun in the restaurant, despite OP saying it was in his hand, OP agreeing the gun cannot fire unless the trigger was pressed, despite Roux not cross-examining the expert who claimed this, etc.

He would be better off just admitting he fired it by accident. This farcical refusal to accept responsibility and refuse to give a straight answer will add a bit of cynicism to his evidence for the main crime (killing of Reeva)

looks like he's just on autopilot lie mode...i'd imagine it's extremely difficult to calculate when to tell the whole truth and when to lie outright when under pressure so it looks like he's just going with lie, lie, lie as much as possible. he'll have to crack at some stage, although that's when he'll fall back on that puke in the bin cry uncontrollable muck.

Merkin

robinph wrote: »

What is it damning evidence of?

Why would anyone be fully clothed in the middle of the night if they were supposed to have been in bed?

robinph

Merkin wrote: »

Why would anyone be fully clothed in the middle of the night if they were supposed to have been in bed?

Is there some law I'm unaware of about having to be undressed in bed?

Her state of dress is really irrelevant and is of no consequence to either the defence or prosecution cases.

Call me Al

brimal wrote: »

So OP is denying he fired the gun in the restaurant, despite OP saying it was in his hand, OP agreeing the gun cannot fire unless the trigger was pressed, despite Roux not cross-examining the expert who claimed this, etc.

He would be better off just admitting he fired it by accident. This farcical refusal to accept responsibility and refuse to give a straight answer will add a bit of cynicism to his evidence for the main crime (killing of Reeva)

He's making himself look really bad and unbelievable, and I just can't understand why his defence team would have allowed himself follow this line of "I didn't do it, I don't know who did it". It pulls into question any point he presents as the truth, if there is any wavering doubt about it in your mind.

brimal

Call me Al wrote: »

He's making himself look really bad and unbelievable, and I just can't understand why his defence team would have allowed himself follow this line of "I didn't do it, I don't know who did it". It pulls into question any point he presents as the truth, if there is any wavering doubt about it in your mind.

One journalist in the courtroom has suggested maybe he is going off script and that his defence didn't know he was going to deny pulling the trigger.

It's impossible that Roux would have forgot to cross-examine the expert. Roux is either assuming OP will admit he fired it, or he is trying to brush it under the carpet and hoped when Nel came to ask about it he didn't put too much emphasis on it.

It's a strange one.

Merkin

robinph wrote: »

Is there some law I'm unaware of about having to be undressed in bed?

Her state of dress is really irrelevant and is of no consequence to either the defence or prosecution cases.

You really are quite unwilling to listen to anyone's point of view but your own aren't you? I don't know why you'd even read such a thread when you're taking such a biased approach to the whole case and so wholly dismissive of everyone else's point of view. Why not set up your own thread and bring your own blinkered views with you?

Muff Richardson

brimal wrote: »

One journalist in the courtroom has suggested maybe he is going off script and that his defence didn't know he was going to deny pulling the trigger.

It's impossible that Roux would have forgot to cross-examine the expert. Roux is either assuming OP will admit he fired it, or he is trying to brush it under the carpet and hoped when Nel came to ask about it he didn't put too much emphasis on it.

It's a strange one.

BBC are reporting in the tweet feed that there was a fair bit of laughter in the court at what was said

Nel says was he bothered by "miracle of gun that went off on its own". More laughter in the court.

Doesn't look good, clearly lying, only day two, stumpy's in a spot of bother.

cynicalcough

On Reeva being dressed can I just point out she was wearing a vest top and a pair of shorts. Hardly a ballgown and an outfit many women would sleep in

robinph

Merkin wrote: »

You really are quite unwilling to listen to anyone's point of view but your own aren't you? I don't know why you'd even read such a thread when you're taking such a biased approach to the whole case and so wholly dismissive of everyone else's point of view. Why not set up your own thread and bring your own blinkered views with you?

Yet you are trying to suggest that Reeva being dressed at 3am is evidence of murder?

Sierra Oscar

robinph wrote: »

Her state of dress is really irrelevant and is of no consequence to either the defence or prosecution cases.

It is a bit odd though, is it not? The average temperature for Pretoria in February is 22C. I certainly wouldn't be going to bed in my clothes! Seems peculiar, did she sleep in her clothes often I wonder?

gramar

Muff Richardson wrote: »

BBC are reporting in the tweet feed that there was a fair bit of laughter in the court at what was said

Nel says was he bothered by "miracle of gun that went off on its own". More laughter in the court.

Doesn't look good, clearly lying, only day two, stumpy's in a spot of bother.

You would have to wonder why on earth he's denying shooting. He's already made two sworn statements saying he did. His defence has admitted this from the beginning and now he's saying he didn't? Bizarre.

Perhaps he's trying to show that he is not of sound mind and that he shouldn't be giving evidence?

seamus

Merkin wrote: »

Why would anyone be fully clothed in the middle of the night if they were supposed to have been in bed?

Perhaps they were drunk and fell into the bed to sleep?
Perhaps that's just how they prefer to sleep?

"Fully clothed" is also a matter of interpretation. She may sleep with underwear and pyjamas on. Or even tracksuit bottoms and a tank top. When she gets up to go to the toilet, maybe she has a "thing" about walking into a bathroom in bare feet, so she puts some slip-on shoes on. By most people's definition she would then be "fully clothed".

The point is that being fully clothed is far from "damning evidence", it's just another question which needs addressing.

sopretty

gramar wrote: »

You would have to wonder why on earth he's denying shooting. He's already made two sworn statements saying he did. His defence has admitted this from the beginning and now he's saying he didn't? Bizarre.

Perhaps he's trying to show that he is not of sound mind and that he shouldn't be giving evidence?

This is the time the gun 'accidentally' went off in the restaurant that they're discussing.

Tasden

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

It is a bit odd though, is it not? The average temperature for Pretoria in February is 22C. I certainly wouldn't be going to bed in my clothes! Seems peculiar, did she sleep in her clothes often I wonder?

Could just be what she wore around the house in the evenings and didn't feel the need to remove it when getting into bed as she was comfortable enough.

Merkin

robinph wrote: »

Yet you are trying to suggest that Reeva being dressed at 3am is evidence of murder?

I find it very strange that she'd be wearing clothes like this in a hot bedroom in the middle of the night during a South African summer. If they had been arguing and awake then it would make more sense that she was dressed.

But oh sorry, I didn't realize you own the thread so I'll shut up now.

Tasden

Merkin wrote: »

I find it very strange that she'd be wearing clothes like this in a hot bedroom in the middle of the night during a South African summer. If they had been arguing and awake then it would make more sense that she was dressed.

But oh sorry, I didn't realize you own the thread so I'll shut up now.

Also if he had the fan on (was it on?) maybe she did feel cool

seamus

gramar wrote: »

You would have to wonder why on earth he's denying shooting. He's already made two sworn statements saying he did. His defence has admitted this from the beginning and now he's saying he didn't? Bizarre.

Perhaps he's trying to show that he is not of sound mind and that he shouldn't be giving evidence?

It could be that's he's trying to portray that he doesn't really recall shooting, to give the impression that firing the weapon was accidental and not intentional. So he claims that he knows the gun was fired, but doesn't recall firing it.

robinph

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

It is a bit odd though, is it not? The average temperature for Pretoria in February is 22C. I certainly wouldn't be going to bed in my clothes! Seems peculiar, did she sleep in her clothes often I wonder?

Not especially. I'd be feeling a bit toasty if wearing clothes and under a duvet, but if it was that warm that you're not under any covers I wouldn't be able to sleep naked on the top of the sheets either and would keep something on or it would just feel weird.

Muff Richardson

robinph wrote: »

Yet you are trying to suggest that Reeva being dressed at 3am is evidence of murder?

In fairness, he's not, he's just pointing out one of the plethora of oddities in what OP claims to have happened before her murder.

This isn't the courtroom itself and you aren't the defence lawyer, it's just a casual discussion on the case, can you calm down a bit with your "you can't handle the truth" moments and bring some common sense and rationale into it and just take it for what it is? How many posts have you made on this anyway in the last 48 hours? You must be wrecked :eek:

gramar

I think it's quite normal that she would be wearing a light t-shirt type top and some sort of shorts in bed. I'd say it's appropriate dress for being in bed or for someone who had just been in bed. If she was wearing jeans, t-shirt and hoodie then that would be fully dressed and would raise questions as to why.

Idbatterim

South African media are reporting that Paralympian Oscar Pistorius shot and killed his girlfriend this morning after mistaking her for a burglar

She was surprising him for Valentine's Day apparently.

Roses are red,
violets are gorgeous,
dont go surprising,
Oscar Pistorious!

robinph

Muff Richardson wrote: »

In fairness, he's not, he's just pointing out one of the plethora of oddities in what OP claims to have happened before her murder.

But it's not odd in the slightest that she was dressed.

brimal

Nel putting OP between a rock and hard place. Either OP is lying, or Roux is incompetent.

Roux's face is priceless during this. Penny for his thoughts.

Merkin

robinph wrote: »

But it's not odd in the slightest that she was dressed.

Well I'm presuming you don't see much action then.

Most sexually active couples who have regular nighttime sex would not be sleeping in clothes, especially in the heat of an African summer. I don't know any young couple who in the throws of a relatively new romance wouldn't be curled up naked together in a post coital haze if they only see each other a few times a week. It's just strange.

gramar

robinph wrote: »

But it's not odd in the slightest that she was dressed.

Not if she is in normal bed dress. If she is fully 'daytime' dressed then that would raise questions seeing as they had gone to bed at 10pm.

From what I remember she wasn't wearing much and nothing that seemed odd or unusual for the circumstances.

Deise Vu

Maybe someone has posted a similar link earlier but here is an article by the South African Insitute of Security studies on when you can shoot an intruder in your home. There is case law quoted from before and after the new SA constitution which outlawed capital punishment:

http://www.issafrica.org/uploads/CQNO8DUPLESSIS.PDF

If you don't have time to read, the most important paragraph is this:

It is important to remember that before you can act
in self-defence, the attack against you should have
commenced, or at least be imminent. For example,
if the thief pulls out a firearm and aims in your
direction, then you would be justified in using
lethal force to protect your life. However, you
cannot shoot the unsuspecting thief on the premise
that if you confront him, he would place your life in
danger. The pre-emptive strike principle is not
applicable in private defence cases.

Bearing in mind Oscar's gun-dealer has already given evidence of going through 'the right to shoot' principles with OP (which is probably something every SA gun nut is more than familiar with anyway) that paragraph can be added to all the other leaps of faith you have to make to believe his story. It also explains why OP gave a rigmarole answer worthy of Brian Lenihan senior when he was asked did he intend to kill the person behind the door whoever it was.

Ihatecuddles

Muff Richardson wrote: »

stumpy's in a spot of bother.

Don't be a c*nt!

namloc1980

Oscar having severe bouts of amnesia today. Nel is destroying his character.

Tasden

namloc1980 wrote: »

Oscar having severe bouts of amnesia today. Nel is destroying his character.

Yeah up til now I kept an open mind, today I'm rolling my eyes to heaven at everything he says.

Muff Richardson

mauzo! wrote: »

Don't be a c*nt!

That's his mam's pet name for him, Oscar told me. Oscars a bit busy at the moment therefore I am the only witness availablde to this claim so we have to assume that my version of the events are closest to the truth, according to some on here that is.

(btw, nothing **** about it. given the chance I called that sick lying murderer that to his face given the chance)

Merkin

namloc1980 wrote: »

Oscar having severe bouts of amnesia today. Nel is destroying his character.

I'm at work so I'm unable to watch it on TV. Can you recommend a good site for live updates (besides from Twitter) please?

namloc1980

Tasden wrote: »

Yeah up til now I kept an open mind, today I'm rolling my eyes to heaven at everything he says.

He's getting caught up in a web of lies about the shooting out the sunroof and the screaming at his former girlfriend. Nel has him wrapped up in lies and the implication for the judge is: 1. This guy is a gun nut prone to losing his temper and 2. If he's lying about these things what else is he lying about.

namloc1980

Nel has got OP to agree with him on a few occasions that OPs own defence counsel are not doing a good job. He's absolutely destroying OP and his defence team.

namloc1980

OP saying he never intended to shoot and didn't know how many shots he fired initially. He admits he had no reason to shoot that night. His story has changed. Nel is all over him.

sopretty

He states he fired the shots. But it was accidental. He didn't intend to shoot. But he can remember 4 shots fired in quick succession. Accidentally like.

Roux should have prepared his witness slightly better.

Again, I reiterate, it is very very difficult to answer questions when your version is a fabrication. That's why he's getting fierce confused.

Ihatecuddles

Muff Richardson wrote: »

That's his mam's pet name for him, Oscar told me. Oscars a bit busy at the moment therefore I am the only witness availablde to this claim so we have to assume that my version of the events are closest to the truth, according to some on here that is.

(btw, nothing **** about it. given the chance I called that sick lying murderer that to his face given the chance)

Completely uncalled for and you could easily offend someone else. There's being too PC, and there's having a bit of cop on.

namloc1980

sopretty wrote: »

He states he fired the shots. But it was accidental. He didn't intend to shoot. But he can remember 4 shots fired in quick succession. Accidentally like.

Roux should have prepared his witness slightly better.

Again, I reiterate, it is very very difficult to answer questions when your version is a fabrication. That's why he's getting fierce confused.

His story has changed. From day 1 he said he shot at the alleged intruders to protect himself and Reeva as he was scared. Now he's saying he never intended to shoot and he accidentally pulled the trigger and doesn't really know what happened. Tissue of lies catching up with him.

robinph

robinph wrote: »

Is there some law I'm unaware of about having to be undressed in bed?

Her state of dress is really irrelevant and is of no consequence to either the defence or prosecution cases.

Reeva's state of dress hasn't got much bearing on whether or not OP intended to kill her.

What was she wearing at the time does anyone know? What kind of clothes specifically?

AudreyHepburn

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

It is a bit odd though, is it not? The average temperature for Pretoria in February is 22C. I certainly wouldn't be going to bed in my clothes! Seems peculiar, did she sleep in her clothes often I wonder?

Since when is person's state of dress evidence of murder?

I could be wrong but I think I read that what she was wearing were shorts and a string or vest top - not at all unusual. Plenty of women, this one included, wear that to be.