Oscar Pistorius... Whats Your Verdict?
- Thread starter Sharrivz
- Start date
Need to be locked up for a long long time. You dont just open up clips like that in a closed bathroom. I am sorry but he is a s*** f***
All I know is that I'm not going near the toilet tonight.
So it's Valentine's day, and apparently Oscar says he's ready to take another shot at love.
hahaah
I don't know what happened in that house that night, I just know someone died, and there was only one other person in the house that need to take responsibility for what he did. For what ever reason he did it. You don't take someones life (witch you are suppose to protect) and then say sorry and live on.
Here is my view on this
When you hear a noise in the night and think that someone may be breaking into your house, what is the first thing most people do? They try look around to see where their family or loved ones are and try ensure their safety. That happens BEFORE you go around looking to shoot the criminal.
So for Oscar to claim that he didnt know it was his girlfriend in the bathroom, when clearly, she wasnt in the bed next to him - doesnt sound to me like a very believable argument.
Now, I do respect that I dont know all the facts and only hear what the media tells. So the truth could be very different. But all I'm saying is that based on what I heard from the media, it doesn't sound to me that this was a genuine mistake
When you hear a noise in the night and think that someone may be breaking into your house, what is the first thing most people do? They try look around to see where their family or loved ones are and try ensure their safety. That happens BEFORE you go around looking to shoot the criminal.
So for Oscar to claim that he didnt know it was his girlfriend in the bathroom, when clearly, she wasnt in the bed next to him - doesnt sound to me like a very believable argument.
Now, I do respect that I dont know all the facts and only hear what the media tells. So the truth could be very different. But all I'm saying is that based on what I heard from the media, it doesn't sound to me that this was a genuine mistake
Exactly !!!!
Exactly @Silver1 you hit the nail on the head right there, and with all the accusations against him of violence in the past it would not surprise me - although that being said I also only heard most of these accusations after this incident so that could just be people trying to hitch a ride on someone else's tragedy
GUILTY!
Whether it was intentional(my guess) or not he still killed her and must be punished.
The sad part is that lots of money buys good lawyers that can get you off just about anything.
Whether it was intentional(my guess) or not he still killed her and must be punished.
The sad part is that lots of money buys good lawyers that can get you off just about anything.
My wife is taking Valentine's day seriously this year - she has hidden my Glock 26 and removed all the bathroom doors already.
Yeah thats the scary part...will be very sad and disgusted if he gets off
Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk
Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk
Unfortunately Jaco wears his Glock on him permanently, sleeps with it on the bed-still. I'm gonna sleep with open eys
Don't close the toilet door, just to be safe
Lmgl, I will NOT close any doors in the house tonight
Leave all the lights on
lets put this into perspective... Warren (Gizmo) is a very light sleeper, any noise that happens at night he generally hears, and with us being hijacked in the past and having guns to us he always goes to check what it is - but before he goes to check, he always wakes me up first.... that is what you do...not just start shooting
When I did my licences, during the exam the instructor drilled it into ou head sooo many times.
You only shoot when your life is in imminent danger.
Imminent danger mean. you see the purdruder facing you and he is either bigger than you and shows aggression or armed, and facing you.
If you shoot a real criminal in the back that was heading for the exit, you are in trouble. If you shoot a real criminal behind a door without knowing whether your life is in imminent danger, you in trouble.
Taking this into account, even if what he said is true (which i do not believe) he still shot his girlfriend. That is worse than the examples above. He still broke the law.
You only shoot when your life is in imminent danger.
Imminent danger mean. you see the purdruder facing you and he is either bigger than you and shows aggression or armed, and facing you.
If you shoot a real criminal in the back that was heading for the exit, you are in trouble. If you shoot a real criminal behind a door without knowing whether your life is in imminent danger, you in trouble.
Taking this into account, even if what he said is true (which i do not believe) he still shot his girlfriend. That is worse than the examples above. He still broke the law.
In order to obtain a guilty verdict the prosecution are going to need to prove 'beyond-all-reasonable-doubt' that he murdered her, or whatever the actual charge is.
'beyond-all-reasonable-doubt' means that they were able to show that it was not only probable that he did it, but that based on the evidence they were able to eliminate any other 'reasonable'* possibilities which could explain what happened. So the prosecution need evidence to show that he knew, or could reasonably be expected to have known, that it was her behind the door, and that he intended to cause her arm by the way he acted.
* 'reasonable' is an open ended standard, that will be determined based on the specific circumstances of each matter
Now if I were arguing the defense I would not aim to prove Oscar's innocence, but rather aim to create so much uncertainty about the case against Oscar, that the Magistrate begins to doubt the evidence presented by the prosecution, and therefore cannot find 'beyond all reasonable doubt' that he committed the crime. Even though the evidence shows that it was possible (and most likely probable) that he did do it with the intention of murdering her, it must meet this standard of 'beyond all reasonable doubt'. The real doubt will probably come from the claim that he was confused and afraid, and acted in 'self defence'.
With the hired gun legal guys that Pretorius has access to, and the funds he has to keep them on his side, I am pretty sure this will be their exact strategy. Similar to the OJ Simpson trial. The evidence was there to indicate it was most likely him, but so much doubt was created, that the jury were confused and could not reach a definite answer. This would be the easiest way to discredit the case against Oscar, and will probably be the reason why he walks (or hops or whatever) away from this.
For those who are interested, 702 posted a copy of his affidavit that was presented to the court at the time of his arrest last year:
http://www.pod702.co.za/Eyewitnessnews/docs/130219oscar_papers.pdf
'beyond-all-reasonable-doubt' means that they were able to show that it was not only probable that he did it, but that based on the evidence they were able to eliminate any other 'reasonable'* possibilities which could explain what happened. So the prosecution need evidence to show that he knew, or could reasonably be expected to have known, that it was her behind the door, and that he intended to cause her arm by the way he acted.
* 'reasonable' is an open ended standard, that will be determined based on the specific circumstances of each matter
Now if I were arguing the defense I would not aim to prove Oscar's innocence, but rather aim to create so much uncertainty about the case against Oscar, that the Magistrate begins to doubt the evidence presented by the prosecution, and therefore cannot find 'beyond all reasonable doubt' that he committed the crime. Even though the evidence shows that it was possible (and most likely probable) that he did do it with the intention of murdering her, it must meet this standard of 'beyond all reasonable doubt'. The real doubt will probably come from the claim that he was confused and afraid, and acted in 'self defence'.
With the hired gun legal guys that Pretorius has access to, and the funds he has to keep them on his side, I am pretty sure this will be their exact strategy. Similar to the OJ Simpson trial. The evidence was there to indicate it was most likely him, but so much doubt was created, that the jury were confused and could not reach a definite answer. This would be the easiest way to discredit the case against Oscar, and will probably be the reason why he walks (or hops or whatever) away from this.
For those who are interested, 702 posted a copy of his affidavit that was presented to the court at the time of his arrest last year:
http://www.pod702.co.za/Eyewitnessnews/docs/130219oscar_papers.pdf
- Joined
- 6/10/13
- Posts
- 444
- Awards
- 17
- Age
- 50
I think that it was not premeditated, but rather that they were having an argument, he lost his temper she ran in to the bathroom to hide he tried to get the door open with his bat, and when that didn't work he went for his gun, most likely to try and shoot the door open, and instead he hit Reeva, he should go to jail for a long long long time.
Similar threads
