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

stefan idiot jones · 10-04-2014 3:12pm

Call me Al wrote: »

He couldn't have expected to use four shots, with the ammunition he was using, and the person hit to come out alive surely.

I mean by all accounts he had been around guns for years, was trained in the use of his weapon, carried it with him a fair bit by the sounds of things, left his gun under or beside his bed, and practiced his shooting.

I heard that they were hollow points. No survivors with those boys going into you and exploding.

sopretty · 10-04-2014 3:14pm

Only he knows, but it down to a court to determine which version of events is believable.

robinph · 10-04-2014 3:22pm

123balltv wrote: »

He admitted today that the person in the cubicle was no threat to him
he is guilty of murder.

That's what he said, but you need the rest of the conversation for the context.

He was asked if Reeva was in the cubicle (yes), he was then asked if Reeva was a threat to him (no), and if the person who was actually in the cubicle was a threat to him (no).
That is not the same as him saying that he didn't believe himself to be under threat at that time.

It's going to come down to if he intended to kill the person behind the door, which I believe he did, or at least to stop them coming at him from behind the door. Then it's down to if the belief of being under threat from the unknown person behind the door counts as manslaughter or murder.

sopretty · 10-04-2014 3:26pm

He's trying desperately to state that he didn't intend to kill Reeva or any other person.

Will he be found guilty of her murder, even if the judge believes he didn't know that it was her there, but that he intended to kill whoever it was?

robinph · 10-04-2014 3:30pm

sopretty wrote: »

He's trying desperately to state that he didn't intend to kill Reeva or any other person.

Will he be found guilty of her murder, even if the judge believes he didn't know that it was her there, but that he intended to kill whoever it was?

Very likely, and can't see a problem with that verdict on the evidence available.

But that is a long way from the theory of they had a fight and he went chasing after her with the gun.

sopretty · 10-04-2014 3:31pm

robinph wrote: »

Very likely, and can't see a problem with that verdict on the evidence available.

But that is a long way from the theory of they had a fight and he went chasing after her with the gun.

Doesn't matter really how it happened if it is proved to have happened.

robinph · 10-04-2014 3:38pm

sopretty wrote: »

Doesn't matter really how it happened if it is proved to have happened.

It does matter.

One is a tragic mistake which resulted in the murder of the person behind the door who happened to be Reeva, and the other is him getting into a fight with her and deliberately murdering her knowing that it was her behind the door.

Not sure what the murder sentences are in SA, but that difference would make a huge change to which end of the range of available sentence he would get.

sopretty · 10-04-2014 3:43pm

robinph wrote: »

It does matter.

One is a tragic mistake which resulted in the murder of the person behind the door who happened to be Reeva, and the other is him getting into a fight with her and deliberately murdering her knowing that it was her behind the door.

Not sure what the murder sentences are in SA, but that difference would make a huge change to which end of the range of available sentence he would get.

Well that's what I asked. Will the sentence be different if is proven that he intended to kill the 'unknown' person(s) behind the door as opposed to if he specifically knew Reeva was behind the door and intended to kill her?

Auldloon · 10-04-2014 3:57pm

upstairs for coffee wrote: »

Pistorious is very frustrating with his "m'lady".

That's a common form of address in SA. I like it but I suppose I'm used to hearing it.

Ash.J.Williams · 10-04-2014 4:02pm

let's just remember the bullets he used were not just going to frighten the person behind the door, they were going to expand inside them and burst into shards of steel that you cannot even remove without cutting the victim.

Sierra Oscar · 10-04-2014 4:14pm

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

let's just remember the bullets he used were not just going to frighten the person behind the door, they were going to expand inside them and burst into shards of steel that you cannot even remove without cutting the victim.

Were they the only bullets available to him at the time though?

stefan idiot jones · 10-04-2014 4:20pm

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollow-point_bullet

Used for maximum effect.

AudreyHepburn · 10-04-2014 4:21pm

sopretty wrote: »

So you have found him not guilty?

Since I am not Judge Masipa, no I can't FIND him not guilty of anything.

But I can say that I BELIEVE he is not guilty of murder but manslaughter.

AudreyHepburn · 10-04-2014 4:23pm

Call me Al wrote: »

He couldn't have expected to use four shots, with the ammunition he was using, and the person hit to come out alive surely.

I mean by all accounts he had been around guns for years, was trained in the use of his weapon, carried it with him a fair bit by the sounds of things, left his gun under or beside his bed, and practiced his shooting.

You're assuming he was thinking logically and straight. If he was in fear for his life and safety, confused and disorintated in the dark and feeling vulnerable without his legs he probably wasn't thinking that clearly. He could just have acted on impulse which is what he says he did.

Merkin · 10-04-2014 4:31pm

Clearly set out guide of todays proceedings for anyone interested

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/oscar-pistorius/10756728/Oscar-Pistorius-murder-trial-live.html

Deise Vu · 10-04-2014 4:41pm

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Since I am not Judge Masipa, no I can't FIND him not guilty of anything.

But I can say that I BELIEVE he is not guilty of murder but manslaughter.

So it is not enough that the police find a guy in a locked apartment in a secure compound with, literally, the smoking gun and his girlfriend with half a head left after being hit with devastating ammunition. It is not enough that a previous girlfriend testified as to his rages, that there was evidence of turmoil in his relationship with the deceased, and that he was gun-happy.

It doesn't matter that his story is that he didn't notice his girlfriend wasn't beside him in his locked apartment inside his secure compound, nor that he had never been burgled in his locked apartment inside his secure compound. Or that it is illegal in South Africa to shoot a burglar unless there is an imminent threat. It doesn't matter that several neighbours testified about hearing a row between a man and a woman beforehand or that Reeva made no noise while he shouted a warning. It doesn't matter that the bathroom is down a corridor and OP whispered to Reeva to stay quite while he was in the bedroom, she definitely heard him though the door , down the corridor. Then, having remained quiet as a mouse in terror, she then trys to open the bathroom door scaring the ****e out of poor little Oscar with his itty bitty little 9MM with it's itty bitty little magazine full of hollow point rounds.

No, it is sufficient for him to say he paniced and accidentally discharged four lethal rounds. And you believe him.

Who'd be a cop?

Call me Al · 10-04-2014 4:45pm

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

You're assuming he was thinking logically and straight. If he was in fear for his life and safety, confused and disorintated in the dark and feeling vulnerable without his legs he probably wasn't thinking that clearly. He could just have acted on impulse which is what he says he did.

What I know is that he was using illegal ammunition that he knew would kill.

FunGoose · 10-04-2014 4:46pm

sopretty wrote: »

Well that's what I asked. Will the sentence be different if is proven that he intended to kill the 'unknown' person(s) behind the door as opposed to if he specifically knew Reeva was behind the door and intended to kill her?

I think that if it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he knew it was Reeva behind the door in the toilet, he will be done for what he is being charged of, Murder.

If the Judge is somehow convinced that OP thought it was an intruder, he will probably get done for Culpable Homicide (SA version of Manslaughter).

The difference being that if OP really believed it was an intruder he may have been in a panicked and fearful state which caused him to discharge the firearm without intent to kill but if it is believed that OP knew it was Reeva, there is no fear or panic etc. but aggression so therefore the intent to kill was definitely there.

But to answer your actual question, if there was intent to kill it doesn't matter who was behind the door, the charge will be murder.

That's my opinion anyway.

AudreyHepburn · 10-04-2014 4:50pm

Call me Al wrote: »

What I know is that he was using illegal ammunition that he knew would kill.

Ok but still KNOWING it would kill and INTENDING to use it to kill are two different things.

Ash.J.Williams · 10-04-2014 4:50pm

was it a modern take on a Balck tallon?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Talon

AudreyHepburn · 10-04-2014 4:52pm

Deise Vu wrote: »

So it is not enough that the police find a guy in a locked apartment in a secure compound with, literally, the smoking gun and his girlfriend with half a head left after being hit with devastating ammunition. It is not enough that a previous girlfriend testified as to his rages, that there was evidence of turmoil in his relationship with the deceased, and that he was gun-happy.

It doesn't matter that his story is that he didn't notice his girlfriend wasn't beside him in his locked apartment inside his secure compound, nor that he had never been burgled in his locked apartment inside his secure compound. Or that it is illegal in South Africa to shoot a burglar unless there is an imminent threat. It doesn't matter that several neighbours testified about hearing a row between a man and a woman beforehand or that Reeva made no noise while he shouted a warning. It doesn't matter that the bathroom is down a corridor and OP whispered to Reeva to stay quite while he was in the bedroom, she definitely heard him though the door , down the corridor. Then, having remained quiet as a mouse in terror, she then trys to open the bathroom door scaring the ****e out of poor little Oscar with his itty bitty little 9MM with it's itty bitty little magazine full of hollow point rounds.

No, it is sufficient for him to say he paniced and accidentally discharged four lethal rounds. And you believe him.

Who'd be a cop?

Of course all these things matter, I never once said they didn't to be fair.

All I have ever said is that I have considered the evidence produced thus far and for me it just doesn't add up to cold blooded murder.

Manslaughter yes, murder no. That's all I've ever said.

sopretty · 10-04-2014 4:53pm

FunGoose wrote: »

I think that if it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he knew it was Reeva behind the door in the toilet, he will be done for what he is being charged of, Murder.

If the Judge is somehow convinced that OP thought it was an intruder, he will probably get done for Culpable Homicide (SA version of Manslaughter).

The difference being that if OP really believed it was an intruder he may have been in a panicked and fearful state which caused him to discharge the firearm without intent to kill but if it is believed that OP knew it was Reeva, there is no fear or panic etc. but aggression so therefore the intent to kill was definitely there.

But to answer your actual question, if there was intent to kill it doesn't matter who was behind the door, the charge will be murder.

That's my opinion anyway.

You're contradicting yourself there. He'll be done for murder if there was intent to kill, not for culpable homicide?

sopretty · 10-04-2014 4:55pm

The reason I ask, is I was wondering why he was struggling to admit to shooting the weapon at the door. I.e. why he was arguing that he 'accidentally' discharged the weapon.

Now I see why.

robinph · 10-04-2014 4:55pm

http://www.hlntv.com/article/2014/03/05/oscar-pistorius-trial-questions

If convicted, what sentence could he get?

Vinnie Politan of HLN's Now: On the Case says if Pistorius is convicted of premeditated murder, then he'll get life in prison with no opportunity for parole for at least 25 years. If Pistorius is convicted of murder, he'll get 15 years in prison. If the ruling is culpable homicide, then the sentence is up to the judge's discretion.

My guess would be 15 years for culpable homicide, or the more basic murder charge. The premeditated murder charge is too risky to try and make stick if it then goes to appeal.

sopretty · 10-04-2014 4:58pm

robinph wrote: »

http://www.hlntv.com/article/2014/03/05/oscar-pistorius-trial-questions

My guess would be 15 years for culpable homicide, or the more basic murder charge. The premeditated murder charge is too risky to try and make stick if it then goes to appeal.

I think the judge is ensuring it won't go to appeal.

Muff Richardson · 10-04-2014 4:58pm

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

But I can say that I BELIEVE he is not guilty of murder but manslaughter.

what kind of beliefs do you have when it comes to leprechauns, unicorns and the tooth fairy? I'm just trying to put things into perspective, thanks.

Ash.J.Williams · 10-04-2014 5:04pm

i guess it's down to the fact that he said it was an accident and the prosecution need to prove otherwise, if they can't then it's an accident.

i tend to believe he did not want to murder her....but i also believe someone that stupid should not be at large and he should get at least 10 years to think about being less stupid...

just to clarify, i said he not not wish to murder her...but he did everything in his power to murder her...

weldoninhio · 10-04-2014 5:05pm

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Ok but still KNOWING it would kill and INTENDING to use it to kill are two different things.

What outcome would you expect if you were well trained in guns, and you were shooting hollow-point bullets, which you yourself referred to as "zombie stoppers", blindly into a door that you knew someone was behind?? What other possible INTENT could you have other than to kill??

lazza14 · 10-04-2014 5:06pm

How long is this trial expected to last out of interest ?

AudreyHepburn · 10-04-2014 5:13pm

Muff Richardson wrote: »

what kind of beliefs do you have when it comes to leprechauns, unicorns and the tooth fairy? I'm just trying to put things into perspective, thanks.

Nice try....I won't take that bait sorry.

sopretty · 10-04-2014 5:16pm

The one thing that is evident to me is that OP is not the brightest tool in the box. I believe he will hang himself. He's not intelligent enough to keep up his host of lies.

sopretty · 10-04-2014 5:19pm

Also, I get the impression that he has been pampered. He has a raging narcissistic element. Reeva seemed to be a measured sweet girl, who was not used to having to explain her every move. He would have seen this as a direct affront to him, therefore an insult to him.

Just my impressions!

Muff Richardson · 10-04-2014 5:38pm

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Nice try....I won't take that bait sorry.

um ok...but dignifying my dumb question with a response was enough to confirm what I thought

Da Shins Kelly · 10-04-2014 5:39pm

Finding it very difficult to believe anything he says. First he was shooting at what he thought was an intruder, then he was shooting accidentally. He says it was 4 shots, then he didn't know how many shots it was. And what's the story with the glock? Like, just take responsibility for your actions.

He honestly sounds like a pretty arrogant individual. Seems to have a problem with shouldering the blame for anything.

sopretty · 10-04-2014 5:51pm

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

Finding it very difficult to believe anything he says. First he was shooting at what he thought was an intruder, then he was shooting accidentally. He says it was 4 shots, then he didn't know how many shots it was. And what's the story with the glock? Like, just take responsibility for your actions.

He honestly sounds like a pretty arrogant individual. Seems to have a problem with shouldering the blame for anything.

Yes, plus a lot of aggression showing in his voice before lunch.

10-04-2014 5:52pm

Muff Richardson wrote: »

um ok...but dignifying my dumb question with a response was enough to confirm what I thought

Give over.

FunGoose · 10-04-2014 5:55pm

sopretty wrote: »

You're contradicting yourself there. He'll be done for murder if there was intent to kill, not for culpable homicide?

Yeh it reads like I'm contradicting myself. I was trying to keep the post short.

If the Judge totally believes OPs version of events then she believes that there was no intent to kill. That is not Murder, that is simply unlawful killing so he may be found guilty of Culpable Homicide.

If she partially believes his story but believes he intended to kill the 'intruder' then that is Murder. It's all about intent.

It is irrelevant who was actually behind the door in the 2 scenarios above.

sopretty · 10-04-2014 6:02pm

FunGoose wrote: »

Yeh it reads like I'm contradicting myself. I was trying to keep the post short.

If the Judge totally believes OPs version of events then she believes that there was no intent to kill. That is not Murder, that is simply unlawful killing so he may be found guilty of Culpable Homicide.

If she partially believes his story but believes he intended to kill the 'intruder' then that is Murder. It's all about intent.

It is irrelevant who was actually behind the door in the 2 scenarios above.

Certainly explains his ridiculous statement today that he didn't intend to shoot at anybody lol.

Cushie Butterfield · 10-04-2014 6:14pm

Call me Al wrote: »

What I know is that he was using illegal ammunition that he knew would kill.

How do you know this? It certainly hasn't been mentioned so far, unless I missed it. He had a licence to hold the ammunition that was in the gun that he used that night. There has been no mention in his charges of him actually using illegal ammunition or using ammunition for which he isn't licenced.

He has been charged with being in possession of ammunition found in his safe for which he isn't licenced (he claims it was in his safe & belonged to his father), but that is not the ammunition that was in the gun that killed Reeva. He didn't yet have a gun in which it could be used, but had submitted paperwork so as he would.

FunGoose · 10-04-2014 6:18pm

sopretty wrote: »

Certainly explains his ridiculous statement today that he didn't intend to shoot at anybody lol.

Yeh, he really is trying to not get done for anything at all: the firearm charges (restaurant and sunroof), the murder charge and the lesser charge of culpable homicide.

I don't think looking for sympathy and playing the victim in this awful tragic accident murder is going to help him at all.

He must really believe that he can actually get off without doing any time. I don't, but who knows!

FunGoose · 10-04-2014 6:30pm

Cushie Butterfield wrote: »

How do you know this? It certainly hasn't been mentioned so far, unless I missed it. He had a licence to hold the ammunition that was in the gun that he used that night. There has been no mention in his charges of him actually using illegal ammunition or using ammunition for which he isn't licenced.

He has been charged with being in possession of ammunition found in his safe for which he isn't licenced (he claims it was in his safe & belonged to his father), but that is not the ammunition that was in the gun that killed Reeva. He didn't yet have a gun in which it could be used, but had submitted paperwork so as he would.

Exactly.

The prosecutor obviously did a good enough job in confusing the issue yesterday with the whole 0.5 ammo/watermelon fiasco.

What I don't understand is why are the defence and prosecution fighting their case as if they are trying to convince a jury when there isn't one? It couldn't all be for the cameras. Surely M'Lady can see through this.

marc96 · 10-04-2014 6:49pm

Let me ask this question....

What's the difference to this incident and the incident involving Visagie??

sopretty · 10-04-2014 6:54pm

marc96 wrote: »

Let me ask this question....

What's the difference to this incident and the incident involving Visagie??

Who is Visagie?

marc96 · 10-04-2014 7:04pm

sopretty wrote: »

Who is Visagie?

Ex springbok rugby player thought his car was been stolen do he shot out his bedroom window,after going to the car he realised he shot his daughter dead thinking she was a car theif

pH · 10-04-2014 7:08pm

I have some hazy memory at the start of all this there was some story about her "surprising him for Valentines day" or something, as the reason she was locked in the loo? Was this something that came from OP (or his defense) or just from the press? If from OP was it mentioned again during the trial?

namloc1980 · 10-04-2014 7:23pm

pH wrote: »

I have some hazy memory at the start of all this there was some story about her "surprising him for Valentines day" or something, as the reason she was locked in the loo? Was this something that came from OP (or his defense) or just from the press? If from OP was it mentioned again during the trial?

No that never came out that I remember

seandineen · 10-04-2014 7:51pm

considering the bathroom door was locked,

if your sleepling in the same bed as somebody, going out with somebody and sleeping with somebody why would you lock the bathroom door in the middle of the night like Steenkamp did

Tasden · 10-04-2014 7:52pm

seandineen wrote: »

considering the bathroom door was locked,

if your sleepling in the same bed as somebody, going out with somebody and sleeping with somebody why would you lock the bathroom door in the middle of the night like Steenkamp did

Habit

sopretty · 10-04-2014 7:53pm

seandineen wrote: »

considering the bathroom door was locked,

if your sleepling in the same bed as somebody, going out with somebody and sleeping with somebody why would you lock the bathroom door in the middle of the night like Steenkamp did

Why would you scream? Why would you lock the bathroom door?

mbur · 10-04-2014 8:24pm

sopretty wrote: »

Why would you scream? Why would you lock the bathroom door?

Oscar claims he was the screamer (I think) But that is no improvement.

Screaming at an intruder in the toilet with gun in hand? I don't think so. Yelling maybe but screaming so intense that it sounds like a woman?? And what was he supposed to be screaming? "Come on out with your hands up" Yeah right.

I don't know why Mr Nel isn't probing that lie.

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

Comments