paralympics 2012

[eFestivals]

because he was in a rage and acting irrationally?

which he could be whether he was thinking he was chasing her - or an intruder.

[abdoujaparov]

which he could be whether he was thinking he was chasing her - or an intruder.

[abdoujaparov]

I believe it's a shoot-first and ask-questions-later society, so I don't think that part of it is anywhere near as weird within South Africa as it appears to us here.

How's about: she gets up and goes to the bathroom. Her doing that wakes him up (without him knowing that's what's woken him up), and he sees the balcony door is open which concerns him because of the high crime. As he shuts it while worrying about the high crime he hears a noise in the bathroom, thinks it's an intruder so grabs his gun and goes and shoots .... and all the while he hadn't thought about whether his girlfriend was there because sometimes she's there and sometimes she's not.

It's plausible, and while it takes a freak set of circumstances and state of mind, coincidences do happen.

At the end of the day, it sounds like the only evidence for murder is that's she's dead - but that's no less evidence for a defence such as the one I've given.

[eFestivals]

In his version, he's acting rationally, not chasing an intruder whilst in a rage

yup - but rational in SA when you've left the door open when asleep could quite easily be "that's an intruder".

From what's come out so far there's zilch to suggest murder over his version, it's simply down to which version you want to believe.

And while his version might be the less likely one in almost everyone's minds, that still doesn't mean it didn't happen like that. Unlikely things happen all the time.

[eFestivals]

possibly, I suppose

but even in a high crime society, would anyone living (in the most secure place in that country) really just unload a handgun through the toilet door on the suspicion that there might be a baddy in there? Without doing anything at all to check who was there - in the knowledge that there is definitely someone else in the house (ie the woman you went to bed with) wouldnt anyone acting rationally, in any society, at least shout a warning??

It's bordering on the incredible...

I don't think that's incredible where there's a huge amount of gun crime as there is in SA - and don't forget this is not the fit adult you might be seeing in your mind but a disabled man who is likely to feel more vulnerable in a fear situation than most.

I don't think you'd find shooting first and asking questions later that incredible if it happened in (say) Texas. SA is much more that than it is the UK.

As for whether it was with the knowledge of someone else being in the house, who knows? Most people aren't at their sharpest when woken in the middle of the night, and as I understand it she didn't live there full-time (so he'd be used to the house being empty at night sometimes at least).

[abdoujaparov]

From what's come out so far there's zilch to suggest murder over his version, it's simply down to which version you want to believe.

[fred quimby]

I like the fact he had his lawyer at the house before the police got there as well

[abdoujaparov]

I like the fact he had his lawyer at the house before the police got there as well

[eFestivals]

I dont know SA law, but if it was in England, it's murder whoever he thought was behind the door, his girlfriend, a burglar or the reincarnation of Pope Gregory IX

SA law is more extreme than Texan law in regard to gun use I think. UK law is at the opposite extreme.

As for his version being at the unbelievable end of things, the believable situations where someone might get accidentally shot are actually the unlikely situations for someone to get shot .... because if something can be expected to perhaps happen, then it's likely to anticipated to happen and so is much less likely to happen.

The fact of his story being a bit on the odd side actually makes it more believable to me. If you were going to cook up a story you'd probably try to keep it within what is more likely to be believed.

[eFestivals]

Yes, not the average person's initial response...

surely that's down to the speed at which the lawyer and old bill each got there?

I'm glad I've never been up before a jury that included you. Jumping to conclusions on the basis of no evidence.

Edited February 21, 2013 by eFestivals

[abdoujaparov]

surely that's down to the speed at which the lawyer and old bill each got there?

I'm glad I've never been up before a jury that included you. Jumping to conclusions on the basis of no evidence.

[thesecretingredientiscrime]

From what I've just read, S.A burglary law means you can kill an intruder if you believe your life is in danger.

From that, I'd assume the defence will simply have to demonstrate that Pistorius believed it was an intruder.

However, surely if the defence demonstrate this in the bail hearing, there's no need for a trial?

(I apologise of this has already been posted and its very obvious).

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/southafrica/9871195/Oscar-Pistorius-murder-charge-South-African-self-defence-law.html

Edited February 21, 2013 by thesecretingredientiscrime

[abdoujaparov]

From what I've just read, S.A burglary law means you can kill an intruder if you believe your life is in danger.

From that, I'd assume the defence will simply have to demonstrate that Pistorius believed it was an intruder.

[thesecretingredientiscrime]

but, according to the piece you linked to, he would have to be in fear of serious injury or death. So the defence would have to demonstrate how he could be in fear of serious injury or death from an unknown person, who he could not see and with whom he does not appear to have attempted any kind of communication and who was behind a locked door. Tricky one, that....

no, because it's a bail hearing and therefore does not hear all the evidence nor does it reach a decision on guilt or innocence

Edited February 21, 2013 by thesecretingredientiscrime

[abdoujaparov]

While I take your first point on board, surely if they demonstrate to a degree satisfactory enough to obtain bail that he thought he was in fear for his life, it makes the trial pointless as the court has already agreed that he hasn't committed a crime?

[eFestivals]

I've reached no conclusions because I havent heard any of the evidence...just speculating, exactly the same as you are

erm ... you've reached the conclusion that he called his lawyer before he called the police.

Just because the lawyer got there first does not get to mean the lawyer was called first.

There's no doubt evidence somewhere for who was called first, and that evidence is what should be used to form the conclusion, and not an assumption made apart from that fact.

[abdoujaparov]

erm ... you've reached the conclusion that he called his lawyer before he called the police.

Just because the lawyer got there first does not get to mean the lawyer was called first.

There's no doubt evidence somewhere for who was called first, and that evidence is what should be used to form the conclusion, and not an assumption made apart from that fact.

[eFestivals]

No, if you read back it was fred quimby - not me - who asserted that he called his lawyer first

and you who expressed your conclusion for what it means.

Edited February 22, 2013 by eFestivals

[abdoujaparov]

and you who expressed your conclusion for what it means.

[eFestivals]

if it is true that he called his lawyer first, it does suggest something. I have no idea whether he called his lawyer first...

it suggests only that he knows he's done something which will cause him to need a lawyer.

Are you looking for more 'customers' for those private prisons you loive so much? ... here's betting you loved the report that was published yesterday by those right wing nutters, which says that private prisons are better on the deep intellectual basis that the people writing the report say they're better.

Talking of prisons tho, you've got to love the Daily Mail froth going on near Bristol right now .... they've decided to convert a YOI into a specialist prison for sex offenders - which has caused those Daily Hate Mailers to say stuff like "those perverts should be locked up and the keyt thrown away, but not locked up in our back yard" .... I think the fact of it being a prison which means those sex offenders aren't walking round the village seems to have passed them by.

Edited February 22, 2013 by eFestivals

[abdoujaparov]

it suggests only that he knows he's done something which will cause him to need a lawyer.

[eFestivals]

if you say so...not interested in a pointless argument about something I didnt say, based on someone else's speculation

what else do you think it suggests? You said it suggests something, so you obviously have a thought for what that 'something' is.

The only thing is suggests is that he'll be needing that lawyer's services - which he'd need whether the police's version is true or if his version is true.

Nothing further of any sense can be extrapolated from that.

It does NOT suggest guilt, aside to someone who has pre-decided that he's guilty.

Edited February 22, 2013 by eFestivals

[abdoujaparov]

what else do you think it suggests? You said it suggests something, so you obviously have a thought for what that 'something' is.

The only thing is suggests is that he'll be needing that lawyer's services - which he'd need whether the police's version is true or if his version is true.

Nothing further of any sense can be extrapolated from that.

It does NOT suggest guilt, aside to someone who has pre-decided that he's guilty.

[abdoujaparov]

Anyway...

Would you give him bail ?

I say no. Its a murder charge, its way to serious in my opinion to grant bail. While the defence have done a good job there are still some huge question marks over OP actions.

[eFestivals]

It does strike me as odd and possibly points to a guilty mind. Possibly. No more than that

guilty - yep. But only for her death.

It says nothing of whether it was meant or not.

Nothing about it is odd. He was and is in need of a lawyer, whether he murdered her or killed her by accident.

As I say, I'm very glad that you're not sat on a jury I'm in front of - mind you, your brain is working nothing different to how most brains do, tho that still says nothing about whether he's guilty or not. Welcome to Daily Mail World.

Edited February 22, 2013 by eFestivals