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

sopretty

Tasden wrote: »

Can I ask, why is the issue of the gun in the restaurant and in the car being put forward in this trial? Like is he is being charged with regards to them at the same time?? Why not before now?

He has a good few charges, which seem to be being addressed at the same time.
ETA: I also find it confusing! I just assumed that it was the SA way, or something. I would have thought that each charge would have been dealt with separately as they occurred on different dates, but I don't know enough about the law.

Deise Vu

sopretty wrote: »

Jeepers, that would be desperate if it was found to be a mistrial!

It doesn't make sense.

This is another good reason to have a judge rather than a jury of idiots your peers. The judge has already warned Nel about his language. That will be the end of it. Likewise that is why the judge has tolerated OPs whiny bitch display (up to now anyway). She doesn't want any stupid appeal about witness badgering to have any chance of success.

I would be curious to know more about the guy that has made the complaint. The only effect will be to get Nel to pull in his horns slightly (which I would imagine is what the complainant wants).

Tasden

sopretty wrote: »

He has a good few charges, which seem to be being addressed at the same time.
ETA: I also find it confusing! I just assumed that it was the SA way, or something. I would have thought that each charge would have been dealt with separately as they occurred on different dates, but I don't know enough about the law.

Hmm, just weird that if it was something he was charged with or whatever why it wasn't dealt with before this trial. Strange. I'd understand them using it as evidence of being dangerous with guns or what have you but he's actually on trial for those situations so its an odd set up

sopretty

Tasden wrote: »

Hmm, just weird that if it was something he was charged with or whatever why it wasn't dealt with before this trial. Strange. I'd understand them using it as evidence of being dangerous with guns or what have you but he's actually on trial for those situations so its an odd set up

It's times like this that I wish the legal people browsed After Hours!

Merkin

Tasden wrote: »

Hmm, just weird that if it was something he was charged with or whatever why it wasn't dealt with before this trial. Strange. I'd understand them using it as evidence of being dangerous with guns or what have you but he's actually on trial for those situations so its an odd set up

Not really as they are all gun related charges.

Discharging firearms in public - two counts

First count: He allegedly discharged a firearm at Tasha's restaurant on 11 January 2013.

The court heard that this happened at lunchtime, when more than 200 people were present, and children were near their table. The charge not only points to discharging a firearm in a public place but the reckless handling of the said firearm.

Mr Pistorius blamed his friend Darren Fresco for passing him a loaded gun but he denies pulling the trigger. Chief prosecutor Gerrie Nel said it must have been a "miracle".


Second count: He allegedly fired a gun through a car sunroof while with then girlfriend Samantha Taylor and friend Darren Fresco on 30 November 2012.

He has admitted getting angry after a police officer inspected his gun which was lying on a car seat, when they were stopped for speeding.

But he denies firing a gun, as alleged by both Ms Taylor and Mr Fresco.

Illegal possession of ammunition

Mr Pistorius is charged with being in possession of .38 ammunition, which would be illegal because he does not have a licence for a gun that takes that ammunition, or a permit to be in possession of it or a dealer's licence which would allow him to be in possession of the bullets.

Mr Pistorius told the court the bullets belonged to his father and he had them for safe-keeping. Mr Nel says his father has refused to make a statement confirming this.

Tasden

Merkin wrote: »

Not really as they are all gun related charges.

Discharging firearms in public - two counts

First count: He allegedly discharged a firearm at Tasha's restaurant on 11 January 2013.

The court heard that this happened at lunchtime, when more than 200 people were present, and children were near their table. The charge not only points to discharging a firearm in a public place but the reckless handling of the said firearm.

Mr Pistorius blamed his friend Darren Fresco for passing him a loaded gun but he denies pulling the trigger. Chief prosecutor Gerrie Nel said it must have been a "miracle".


Second count: He allegedly fired a gun through a car sunroof while with then girlfriend Samantha Taylor and friend Darren Fresco on 30 November 2012.

He has admitted getting angry after a police officer inspected his gun which was lying on a car seat, when they were stopped for speeding.

But he denies firing a gun, as alleged by both Ms Taylor and Mr Fresco.

Illegal possession of ammunition

Mr Pistorius is charged with being in possession of .38 ammunition, which would be illegal because he does not have a licence for a gun that takes that ammunition, or a permit to be in possession of it or a dealer's licence which would allow him to be in possession of the bullets.

Mr Pistorius told the court the bullets belonged to his father and he had them for safe-keeping. Mr Nel says his father has refused to make a statement confirming this.

Oh I understand why they are being included in the trial, I just don't understand why they weren't already dealt with, like if he hadn't killed reeva would he still have been charged or were they only brought after reeva died?

Merkin

Only brought after the murder of Steenkamp afaik

Sierra Oscar

Merkin wrote: »

Only brought after the murder of Steenkamp afaik

Probably because the police only became aware of the occurrence of the incident when they started conducting inquiries into the murder?

Ann22

If Reeva did run away in terror it's a pity she didnt run out the bedroom door instead of into the toilet.(or even onto the balcony)....or maybe it seemed safer than maybe being shot in the back of the head halfway down the stairs. It's just awful!

Has it been mentioned yet that her bladder was completely empty? I watched a documentary where a pathologist said it was. That she literally had just went to the toilet when she she died. That would back up his story. ..but then what about the food in her stomach? Seemingly she'd eaten about 2 hrs before death whereas he said theyd eaten much earlier than that. I was wondering why someone asked him if he would've known if she had slipped downstairs for a snack.

jescart

Does anyone know when the trial is scheduled to end? Can't find any dates on google

Whatsisname

jescart wrote: »

Does anyone know when the trial is scheduled to end? Can't find any dates on google

I found it last week, can't remember where I found it or exactly when but I think its about this time next month, open to correction though.

Merkin

May 16th apparently

AudreyHepburn

upstairs for coffee wrote: »

If a mistrial is declared because of the liar comment that would be shocking. If Pistorious tells a lie under oath, is it not right to call him a liar?

Key word in that sentence...IF. The point is we don't know for sure, any of us, whether he's lying or not. The only one who knows that is Pistorius himself.

And in any case it is not for any of us here or even Gerrie Nel to lable Pistorius a liar, that is Judge Masipa's job.

AudreyHepburn

Just a few little things that I am stuggling to see the suspicous/sinsiter side of:

The locked bathroom door; I just don't understand why people are struggling so much with this. Surely I can't be the only person on the planet who locks her door when she goes to the bathroom? Regardless of who is in the house I don't relish the idea of some-one walking in on me answer the call of nature. Why is it so unusual that Reeva chose to lock her door?

The mobile phones in the bathroom; Again not at all unusual, I know many people who are so attached to their phones and/or other gadgets that they bring them literally everywhere including the toilet. Nothing at all strange or suspicious about it tbh.

Reeva's state of dress; What exactly is so strange about a woman wearing shorts and a top to bed? Do most woment not wear the same at some point? I certainly do. It certainly doesn't mean anything in terms of Pistorius intent that night.

Reeva not calling out that it was her in the bathroom; Surely it is not strange or unusual that if there was an intruder in the house Reeva would have kept quiet so as not to draw attention to herself. She may not have even realised that Oscar was outside the bathroom door or that is where he thought the intruder was. She could have assumed the intruder was in the bedroom or elsewhere in the house. Remember he never shouted at the intruder to get out of the BATHROOM, he shouted to get of the HOUSE. There is nothing to say Reeva too was terrified and trying to stay hidden from the intruders she too believed to be in the house.

I really cannot understand why people are finding these things so difficult to understand, why they won't just think logically about them.

Cienciano

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Just a few little things that I am stuggling to see the suspicous/sinsiter side of:

The locked bathroom door; I just don't understand why people are struggling so much with this. Surely I can't be the only person on the planet who locks her door when she goes to the bathroom? Regardless of who is in the house I don't relish the idea of some-one walking in on me answer the call of nature. Why is it so unusual that Reeva chose to lock her door?

The mobile phones in the bathroom; Again not at all unusual, I know many people who are so attached to their phones and/or other gadgets that they bring them literally everywhere including the toilet. Nothing at all strange or suspicious about it tbh.

Reeva's state of dress; What exactly is so strange about a woman wearing shorts and a top to bed? Do most woment not wear the same at some point? I certainly do. It certainly doesn't mean anything in terms of Pistorius intent that night.

No problem with any of that

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Reeva not calling out that it was her in the bathroom; Surely it is not strange or unusual that if there was an intruder in the house Reeva would have kept quiet so as not to draw attention to herself. She may not have even realised that Oscar was outside the bathroom door or that is where he thought the intruder was. She could have assumed the intruder was in the bedroom or elsewhere in the house. Remember he never shouted at the intruder to get out of the BATHROOM, he shouted to get of the HOUSE. There is nothing to say Reeva too was terrified and trying to stay hidden from the intruders she too believed to be in the house.

I really cannot understand why people are finding these things so difficult to understand, why they won't just think logically about them.

No, this whole part is very strange to me. Oscars entire story about Reeva in bed, telling her to call the police, shooting the "intruder" and not having heard a word from anyone during the whole incident is completely unbelievable to me.

Merkin

Cienciano wrote: »

No, this whole part is very strange to me. Oscars entire story about Reeva in bed, telling her to call the police, shooting the "intruder" and not having heard a word from anyone during the whole incident is completely unbelievable to me.

+1. It's just wholly implausible. Anyone's first instinct would be to make absolutely sure where your loved one was.

Paddy Cow

Merkin wrote: »

+1. It's just wholly implausible. Anyone's first instinct would be to make absolutely sure where your loved one was.

The first reaction when woken up by a sound would be to turn over and shake the person beside you. Obviously you would notice that they weren't there.

Merkin

Exactly. I had this chat with Mr. Merkin at the weekend and he said his first instinct would be to make sure I'm safe. If absolute silence was necessary he'd make sure to feel around the bed to make physical contact. In the face of such apparent danger its just inconceivable that he'd think nothing of her not responding in any way. It's nigh on impossible.

Deise Vu

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Just a few little things that I am stuggling to see the suspicous/sinsiter side of:

The locked bathroom door; I just don't understand why people are struggling so much with this. Surely I can't be the only person on the planet who locks her door when she goes to the bathroom? Regardless of who is in the house I don't relish the idea of some-one walking in on me answer the call of nature. Why is it so unusual that Reeva chose to lock her door?

It is not a huge point. Personally, if it was the middle of the night and I was sleeping beside the only other person in the building, I wouldn't bother. Some people would, others wouldn't if going to the toilet but absolutely everyone who was trying to escape a psycho would.

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

The mobile phones in the bathroom; Again not at all unusual, I know many people who are so attached to their phones and/or other gadgets that they bring them literally everywhere including the toilet. Nothing at all strange or suspicious about it tbh.

It depends on what OP's story is today. Was she asleep and woke up when he moved the fans or was she already awake and using her the mobile phone. I would find it difficult to believe someone who woke up for a pee at 3 AM would bring their phone with them. Whatever the case, given that she had her mobile phone with her, why didn't she ring the police as OP claims he told her?

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Reeva's state of dress; What exactly is so strange about a woman wearing shorts and a top to bed? Do most woment not wear the same at some point? I certainly do. It certainly doesn't mean anything in terms of Pistorius intent that night.

OP is moving fans around because he is presumably too warm, she is wearing clothes. It is another inconsistency which jars.

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Reeva not calling out that it was her in the bathroom; Surely it is not strange or unusual that if there was an intruder in the house Reeva would have kept quiet so as not to draw attention to herself. She may not have even realised that Oscar was outside the bathroom door or that is where he thought the intruder was. She could have assumed the intruder was in the bedroom or elsewhere in the house. Remember he never shouted at the intruder to get out of the BATHROOM, he shouted to get of the HOUSE. There is nothing to say Reeva too was terrified and trying to stay hidden from the intruders she too believed to be in the house.

Too terrified to use her mobile phone as allegedly instructed by OP? She would have been relatively safe locked in the bathroom (it would certainly have bought her enough time to phone the police / compound security) yet with OP screaming outside the door she decides to unlock it without saying anything? Bear in mind he is just outside it and allegedly screaming his head off? Right.

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I really cannot understand why people are finding these things so difficult to understand, why they won't just think logically about them.

[/QUOTE]

The bit some of us thickos are having difficulty understanding is a guy, armed with a pistol, in a locked apartment in a secure compound, cricket bat jammed under the door, with an outside intruder alarm that had not triggered decides to shoot 4 lethal rounds through his own bathroom door without checking the whereabouts of his lover. Bearing in mind his apartment is presumably not pocked-marked with bullet-holes from similar previous incidents, does it not stretch your credulity just a little bit, bearing in mind, that even if he had slaughtered an unarmed tattoed cretin instead of his model girlfriend, that it would still be murder under South African law (and the law in most semi-civilised countries)?

In my first post I said this case was, uniquely, guilty until proven innocent and OP would have to come up with some amazing story to prove his innocence. So far he hasn't managed to come up with anything remotely plausible.

stefan idiot jones

Not that this is my number one topic of conversation (in the real world) but I've yet to hear anyone that doesn't believe that he murdered her.

Yes, murdered.

brimal

Pistorius being torn apart again today. Nel is great to watch.

Merkin

Link for any of us glued to it following it in work:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/14/oscar-pistorius-trial-live-blog-14-april

FunGoose

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Probably because the police only became aware of the occurrence of the incident when they started conducting inquiries into the murder?

I'm pretty sure that's what happened.

OP had the choice for ALL charges to be dealt with together or separately. He chose together obviously.

FunGoose

philstar wrote: »

why don't they have a jury.....seems strange

Trial by jury was abolished during apartheid.

This trial is before a judge and her two assessors who she appointed. Usually the assessors would be members of the public I think, but in this case the judge appointed two people with a background in law.

NickD

brimal wrote: »

Pistorius being torn apart again today. Nel is great to watch.

I think I'm falling in love with Nel. Although I am filled with pity for his kids, the teenage years cannot have been easy, imagine trying to lie to him about sneaking out or having a few drinks!

Tasden

Aw I know people are fed up with his crying and whatever else but when he said "i did not shoot at reeva" my heart just sank for him

He sounded heartbroken

Merkin

10.57am BST

Nel is pressing Pistorius when he says he can't explain why he had not mentioned the door shutting before. Nel says it's because Pistorius is making things up as he goes along. Pistorius says he was afraid someone might shoot at him through open bathroom window or that somebody might come from the toilet and shoot him. He thought he heard the toilet door open. "I could see the door.. I fired before the door move." Nel jumps on this. So you fired before you saw the door or handle move, asks Nel.



11.06am BST

Pistorius' voice quivers. "I wasn't aiming at the door... my eyes were going between the door and the window." "I was pointing at the door." "I didn't have time to think," says Pistorius. Nel says now at this instant, he wasn't thinking. Pistorius is struggling. Nel: "Is it your defence that you fired at the perceived attacker," asks Nel. "I fired at the door," comes the reply. "I fired out of fear," says Pistorius. "I heard this noise, I thought someone was was coming to attack and I fired." Nel says Pistorius is changing his defence because he knew he was firing at Reeva. "I did not fire at Reeva," wails Pistorius and the court adjourns.

sopretty

Tasden wrote: »

Aw I know people are fed up with his crying and whatever else but when he said "i did not shoot at reeva" my heart just sank for him

He sounded heartbroken

I've heard him say in another instance, I NEVER EVER SAID THAT, MYLADY, with such conviction that I would have believed him, only for I had heard him say the very thing he was denying 2 minutes earlier.
That's when Nel mentioned that he sounded exactly the same, when lying, as when giving his evidence.

Merkin

NickD wrote: »

I think I'm falling in love with Nel. Although I am filled with pity for his kids, the teenage years cannot have been easy, imagine trying to lie to him about sneaking out or having a few drinks!

Lolers re the kids!

He is a total ledgebag though. I've got a real crush on him too. He is razor sharp.

brimal

Wow what a key day in this trial. OP has been picked apart bit by bit by Nel and the last few moments you could sense the whole thing unraveling.

OP breaks down in tears as he is obviously struggling with his story. Judge calls a quick break.

Tasden

sopretty wrote: »

I've heard him say in another instance, I NEVER EVER SAID THAT, MYLADY, with such conviction that I would have believed him, only for I had heard him say the very thing he was denying 2 minutes earlier.
That's when Nel mentioned that he sounded exactly the same, when lying, as when giving his evidence.

Oh I wouldn't base my judgement of the case on it, its not an indicator of innocence like, I just felt sorry for him.

Tasden

Lol "the cross examination makes him sad so let's skip that bit!

Merkin

The BBC's Andrew Harding points to this useful piece by Professor James Grant on the different defence arguments Pistorius can use.

Really well worth the read for anyone interested in the case as it explains a lot in layman's terms.

http://criminallawza.net/

123balltv

The arrogance of Pistorius in his head hes thinking im rich, my
family are mining barons how dare you question me like this.

gramar

OP says the screams were his and were between the shots. I read before that he fired the four shots in quick succession. I've been following it this morning and
there are lots of inconsistencies in his declarations.

Dozyart

123balltv wrote: »

The arrogance of Pistorius in his head hes thinking im rich, my
family are mining barons how dare you question me like this.

probably kicking back with his feet up on the bench,rolling his eyes to every question too!

Don't talk bollocks!!

Merkin

gramar wrote: »

there are lots of inconsistencies in his declarations.

He's tripping himself over with the lies!

Cienciano

Imagine reacting to unknown noises in your house by shooting at them?

Merkin

Cienciano wrote: »

Imagine reacting to unknown noises in your house by shooting at them?

We mustn't forget his full "recon mode" incident/comments on Twitter.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/03/17/oscar-pistorius-once-went-into-full-combat-recon-mode-to-fight-perceived-intruder/

Sierra Oscar

I wouldn't bet against Nel extracting a confession from Pistorius by the end of the trial judging by the way things are going today. Some serious holes are being punched in his defense at the moment.

LaVail

Getting a fair grilling atm

Merkin

Oh sh1t:

#oscarpistorius says 'went out to check the balcony'. Nel stops him. (Earlier he'd insisted he DIDN'T go out on balcony)
— Alex Crawford (@AlexCrawfordSky) April 14, 2014

sopretty

He said first that he searched the carpet with his hands to see if she was on the ground. Then he says, he just checked by walking across that area.

Pumpkinseeds

Nel is very entertaining to watch. I loved it when Pistorius responded to a question put to him by Nel with 'I don't want to argue the point' followed by Nel saying 'I do'.

sopretty

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

Nel is very entertaining to watch. I loved it when Pistorius responded to a question put to him by Nel with 'I don't want to argue the point' followed by Nel saying 'I do'.

I'd say he doesn't believe a word out of Oscar's mouth anymore.

Would love to know what the judge spoke to the two Counsels about.

Da Shins Kelly

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Reeva not calling out that it was her in the bathroom; Surely it is not strange or unusual that if there was an intruder in the house Reeva would have kept quiet so as not to draw attention to herself. She may not have even realised that Oscar was outside the bathroom door or that is where he thought the intruder was. She could have assumed the intruder was in the bedroom or elsewhere in the house. Remember he never shouted at the intruder to get out of the BATHROOM, he shouted to get of the HOUSE. There is nothing to say Reeva too was terrified and trying to stay hidden from the intruders she too believed to be in the house.

I really cannot understand why people are finding these things so difficult to understand, why they won't just think logically about them.

How anyone could find anything "logical" about this is beyond me. He's been saying that he was telling Reeva to call the police while he was getting his gun and while he thought she was still in bed (first he said he was saying it quietly and then the next he was shouting it, btw). How he would not consider it strange when no one replied or moved in the bed is completely unbelievable. I just don't believe for a second that he didn't realize that she was not in bed, much less in the room while he was getting his gun. Nobody moving or saying anything while he's getting frantic about a possible intruder? Please.

Also, as far as not realising he was outside the bathroom, surely the proximity of a voice would let you know where he was in the room? Most people can tell the difference between a voice from outside the door of the room you're in, and a voice from further away.

sopretty

It's unbelievable because it didn't happen.

Sierra Oscar

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

She may not have even realised that Oscar was outside the bathroom door or that is where he thought the intruder was. She could have assumed the intruder was in the bedroom or elsewhere in the house.

Really, despite the fact that OP has himself said that he was shouting and roaring in a threatening manner for the intruder to 'get the **** out' of his house as he was approaching the bathroom door and getting ready to fire? Wouldn't Reeva have realized that OP was approaching the bathroom, and surely she would have said something at that stage given that she knew there was a very real threat of him using his firearm?

Also, the evidence suggests that Reeva was up against the bathroom door when she was shot (prosecution trying to claim that she was talking / arguing with OP) so she surely would have heard OP approaching the bathroom.

That's what I don't find very believable, especially when you have members of her family saying that it would be totally out of character for her to just remain quite like that.

Ash.J.Williams

the only illogical thing in this entire case is Oscar not tapping the missus on the shoulder in the bed to tell her there might be an intruder in the house...

Da Shins Kelly

To be honest, I think the people who are so eager to believe his version of events are bending the rules of logic a little bit.