I'm on my phone and may well have missed a post where you're arguing something other to what I think you're arguing, and if you are then I apologise.
This is the post I saw it stem from...
What I've said regarding that makes perfect sense.
Oscar Pistorius Trial
- Thread starter Rednotdead
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) was joined by comedian Ali Woods to look back at the best and worst moments of a rollercoaster season with the annual United Hour Awards.
Has Ten Hag been sacked yet? We're not sure and we hope not, but it's looking more likely as the days pass.
Who should replace him and why is it taking so long to make a decision?
This is the post I saw it stem from...
I think so.
My argument is if he believed that someone had broken into his house, be it via the bathroom, front or back door, it doesn't really matter, surely your first thought would be to check on your girlfriend. Not only to make sure she was safe but also that she wasn't the person making the noise? If you couldn't find her the last thing you would do is shoot through a closed door.
Yeah I agree with you there, especially if you sleep next to her. If I woke up to a noise and the person I shared a bed with wasn't in bed my first assumption would be the noise was made by them. Which would then make going off into the house shooting into doors a bizarre thing to do.
Exactly.
Today's evidence alone is enough to completely screw him.
What part?. I've missed everything before they went for lunch.
His ex girlfriend has went to town on him, saying he has fired shots in anger before and that he woke her up one night when he heard noises outside.
Not sure how that relates to this case.
This will go on for months?
So because he did something last time, it means he did it this time too? How does that work in law then?
Make no mistake he's guilty as sin and will be jailed for a long time, but you can't use word of mouth of something that might have happened years ago as evidence in this case. The case is the case in question.
Ex-girlfriend says he screams like a man.
Lawyer: "According to him, if he screams and is really anxious, he sounds like a woman."
Ex-girlfriend (Taylor): "That is not true, he sounds like a man."
Lawyer: "Have you heard him scream before?"
Taylor: "Yes."
Lawyer: "Once or more?"
Taylor: "A few times, my lady."
Lawyer: "But I think they would say that only when he is really anxious, when he screamed, did you see him being anxious?"
Taylor: "I've seen him be very anxious."
Lawyer: "And he would shout at you?"
Taylor: "At myself."
Lawyer: "According to him, if he screams and is really anxious, he sounds like a woman."
Ex-girlfriend (Taylor): "That is not true, he sounds like a man."
Lawyer: "Have you heard him scream before?"
Taylor: "Yes."
Lawyer: "Once or more?"
Taylor: "A few times, my lady."
Lawyer: "But I think they would say that only when he is really anxious, when he screamed, did you see him being anxious?"
Taylor: "I've seen him be very anxious."
Lawyer: "And he would shout at you?"
Taylor: "At myself."
Not if it shows a propensity towards outbursts of anger and violence.
His previous girlfriend also claims that he regularly woke up in the night because he thought he heard intruders and would always wake her up to get her to check too. Which is very, very relevant. Even if it is her word against his. However, the instance of firing the gun in anger was with several other people so I'm sure they'll be called to corroborate.
Was originally meant to be 3, but they're saying it could run to 6 because it's moving so slowly.
Funny feeling he will do a runner.
No pun intended.
No pun intended.
I get the impression Pistorius was a hot shot who thought he was above everyone and everything. Too big for his own boots. (Pardon the pun!)
The case is very much going to come down to the question of how likely is it that he would shoot someone in the heat of the moment and also how believable is it that he wouldn't check to see if she was there with a possible intruder. The opinion of the ex, if it is the truth, shows the first being not unbelievable and the second being likely. These two things are very important to a case that may rely on a subjective understanding of the situation to ascertain an objective assessment of the law
I'm almost convinced you're trolling now.
If he believed that the person in the toilet was a burglar then there is a lot of mitigation for his actions, as he would have cause to believe that his life and that of his girlfriend were in danger. This is why he is claiming it in his defence.
There's no debate over what he said he believed.
I'll send this off to Bletchley Park.
It certainly wasn't your argument before. Your argument was that you didn't understand the difference between the statements, and mistakenly thought I had contradicted myself.
As it happens though, it does matter. If he believed that the person in the toilet, then, regardless of the lack of checks to make sure that it wasn't his girlfriend, it would make a lot of difference. It would be a rash act, but certainly wouldn't be as morally wrong as deliberately killing his girlfriend. Nor would it carry as harsh a penalty under law.
He didn't say anything like that. Past actions may indicate a propensity to commit future actions (especially with respect to aggression and guns), which is why it is admissible in court. Obviously it proves nothing on its own, but (taken at face value) it shows that the fact that his alleged actions are otherwise unlikely (i.e. using guns in a fit of anger) is less relevant, because he has been shown to behave in a similar fashion in the past. It clears a stumbling block for the prosecution.
Also, what makes you say that this is "word of mouth"? Or that you can't use evidence about things that might have happened years ago?
What he "believed" is not admissible at court right? (as there is no way to prove that shit... its just his word)
Yes, I agree that it's far more plausible.
What I meant was that even if it was an implausibly quick piece of thinking to come up with the burglar story after killing her (again, I agree it wasn't), he'd still have to defend himself against the theory that he'd planned the murder and the cover up.
Are you for real.He had no idea if there was a burglar in his bathroom. He had no idea were his girlfriend was, he had no idea who was in the bathroom, he had no idea if someone had broken into his house.
Why not open the door? Why not try and locate your GF, Why didn't he leave the house, Why didn't he call an ambulance. No better to shoot first and ask questions later.
You do that.
If he believed it was a burglar, he still has to take responsibility for his actions. Again, he had no idea who was in the bathroom, the fact his girlfriend wasn't in bed beside him might have been a clue to who was in the bathroom, opening the door to the bathroom might of helped, calling the Police or the estate security would have helped. By using his gun he took the law into his own hands.
It's not a question over whether it's admissible evidence. It's his defence.
It certainly is possible to decide on what someone believed, in court. If I were to push an old lady off a cliff, and I used the defence that I thought she'd just be able to grow wings and fly off, then it would be decided in court that it was not at all likely that I did in fact believe that, and I would be found guilty of murder (regardless of it being my "just my word").
OK, I urge you, for the sake of this thread, to just read through it again slowly and carefully. About 2 pages later, and it's clear that you have absolutely no idea about what the argument was about.
He had no idea if there was a burglar in his bathroom. He had no idea were his girlfriend was, he had no idea who was in the bathroom, he had no idea if someone had broken into his house.
Why not open the door? Why not try and locate your GF, Why didn't he leave the house, Why didn't he call an ambulance. No better to shoot first and ask questions later.
You do that.
If he believed it was a burglar, he still has to take responsibility for his actions. Again, he had no idea who was in the bathroom, the fact his girlfriend wasn't in bed beside him might have been a clue to who was in the bathroom, opening the door to the bathroom might of helped, calling the Police or the estate security would have helped. By using his gun he took the law into his own hands.
For the last time, if it helps, I agree with what you're saying in the two paragraphs. It's entirely relevant to judging Pistorius morally and legally. But it has nothing to do with the point I was making.
This is going the same way as the Rebekah Brooks trial.
Not enough evidence despite the fact both are clearly guilty.
Not enough evidence despite the fact both are clearly guilty.
What makes this case unique is that the SA judicial system is considered something of a joke. So it's not just Pistorius on trial, it's a nation's legal framework. It's very much believed that this is why it was agreed to televise the trial - as a way of showing transparency and competency. So one would assume this would also impact upon the final outcome. The question is, what would be perceived globally as the best way to show SA justice in the best light?
Pistorius is certainly going down, Brooks too hopefully.
I sat in the Brooks trial the other day, just to see her cross-examined.
She's a smart one. She gave nothing away. The entire aim of their case is basically to bore the jury to such an extent they'll have to say not-guilty.
There's far more chance of nabbing Coulson.
Most damning evidence of the day was the security guard saying he called Pistorius after shots were fired and Pistorius told him "everything is fine".
Pretty much all of today's evidence was damning. I'm finding it strange that the defence lawyer - who is renowned for his rapier-like cross-examining - has been made to look a fool on several occasions by witnesses. Doesn't bode well for OP.
Roux hasn't got a hope, his only tactic has been to try to bully the witnesses into screwing up which would have played very badly in a jury trial (and probably doesn't go down too well here either). I'm amazed he's been able to get away with some of his nonsense particularly floating hypotheticals and inviting the witness to concur/disagree - why doesn't Nel object?
Last edited:
Its all circumstantial , but why did Steenkamp lock the bathroom door? Surely after 3 months of dating someone you're comfortable enough to go to the loo without locking the door. Especially that late at night. Hell, I've had birds on one night stands who don't even close the door, let alone lock it!! 
I'm certain there are people that while they have been living together for decades will still lock themselves in bathroom when going with their business.
Presumably to protect herself from something/someone.Its all circumstantial , but why did Steenkamp lock the bathroom door? Surely after 3 months of dating someone you're comfortable enough to go to the loo without locking the door. Especially that late at night. Hell, I've had birds on one night stands who don't even close the door, let alone lock it!!
Dun dun dun!
My point exactly!
i never take a shit woithout locking the door. Thats not an issueIts all circumstantial , but why did Steenkamp lock the bathroom door? Surely after 3 months of dating someone you're comfortable enough to go to the loo without locking the door. Especially that late at night. Hell, I've had birds on one night stands who don't even close the door, let alone lock it!!
Is there anyone who followed the OJ trial? I'd like to know who they feel deserved the benefit of the doubt between him and Pistorius?
I disagree with your opening statement there, I wouldn't say our justice system is a 'joke'. It has problems yes however South Africa has a very strong justice system modeled on the 'best' of UK law and American law. We have one of the best constitutions and it's considered SAs saving grace in terms of not going down the wrong road. However, we do have bad police work though. This is typically due to incompetence and the police being under staffed. We simply don't have enough well trained and qualified detectives. This means that when a case gets to court it typically fails (only about 10% conviction rate on murders if I recall correctly) due to shoddy police work (due to being over worked or under skilled). Sort that out and you sort out the conviction rate problem.
State version: To hide away or run from OscarIts all circumstantial , but why did Steenkamp lock the bathroom door? Surely after 3 months of dating someone you're comfortable enough to go to the loo without locking the door. Especially that late at night. Hell, I've had birds on one night stands who don't even close the door, let alone lock it!!
Oscar version: Because he shouted that there's an intruder in the house and she must stay where she is