Erm, if you kept a gun for defensive purposes, wouldn't you know exactly where to find it at all times? That's the whole reason why you'd have it in the first place, it would be pretty silly if you weren't able to find it even in a dark room. I can find my torch at night if I need it, I can almost always pick it up as I know exactly where I left it. It doesn't take a criminal mastermind to be able to do the same.
Oscar Pistorius thread
- Thread starter Gilly
- Start date
Erm, if you kept a gun for defensive purposes, wouldn't you know exactly where to find it at all times? That's the whole reason why you'd have it in the first place, it would be pretty silly if you weren't able to find it even in a dark room. I can find my torch at night if I need it, I can almost always pick it up as I know exactly where I left it. It doesn't take a criminal mastermind to be able to do the same.
Don
Unless SA law is different, it needs to be beyond reasonable doubt.There is always an answer and a million scenarios it could have been, like I keep saying, it has to be reasonable doubt, not just any doubt
And all this just for a bail hearing! The trial itself is going to be a circus.
He was in the same room as her when he heard the noise that he thought was an intruder. I cannot fathom any reason why he wouldnt have checked that Reeva was still in the room in bed at this point.
...which is exactly why this:
Is nothing short of horrendously stupid.
'Any' reason? How about the fact that a potential killer could walk around the wall at any time?
That's off the top of my head.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 8 Feb 2004
- Posts
- 4,539
I think the key points of the case will be:
1) Do the ballistics show Oscar was wearing his legs when the shots were made.
2) Does the evidence indicate that Steenkamp was going to the toilet or had locked herself in the toilet following an argument. If the former then Oscar's story seems more likely unless he waited lay awake, waiting for her to go to the toilet to shoot her. Not impossible and most certainly more calculated.
Despite stating he was 'guilty as sin' a few posts ago the more I read the more I start to believe the events he desribed are possible. I certainly think he had a thing for guns and the potential for robbed is a scenario he had almost certainly played through his head a number of time. Upon hearing the noise he rashly convinced himself "This is it, I'm being robbed" after which he went in to 'fight or flight' response, the adrenaline kicked in and he was oblivious to all logic and reason.
I'm sure we've all had situations in life where we have believed something and convinced ourselves it must be true without considering the 'what ifs'. Usually these are non-tragic but when guns come in to play things can get very messy.
1) Do the ballistics show Oscar was wearing his legs when the shots were made.
2) Does the evidence indicate that Steenkamp was going to the toilet or had locked herself in the toilet following an argument. If the former then Oscar's story seems more likely unless he waited lay awake, waiting for her to go to the toilet to shoot her. Not impossible and most certainly more calculated.
Despite stating he was 'guilty as sin' a few posts ago the more I read the more I start to believe the events he desribed are possible. I certainly think he had a thing for guns and the potential for robbed is a scenario he had almost certainly played through his head a number of time. Upon hearing the noise he rashly convinced himself "This is it, I'm being robbed" after which he went in to 'fight or flight' response, the adrenaline kicked in and he was oblivious to all logic and reason.
I'm sure we've all had situations in life where we have believed something and convinced ourselves it must be true without considering the 'what ifs'. Usually these are non-tragic but when guns come in to play things can get very messy.
I would say when hearing your other half shouting for an intruder to get out of the house, that most people's instinct would be to stay where they are and not make a sound, to ensure their own safety in that kind of situation. Can you honestly say that without hindsight you'd have done the same thing in that situation? It is all very well to say something like that now, knowing he was going to the bathroom, but she would have no way of pinpointing his exact location when he shouted that, so how would she ever realise he had mistaken her for the intruder? He didn't say "get out of the bathroom". He said "get out of my house".
Aye, that's what I was meaning.
Personally as the information stands at the moment, which we all know is sketchy at best but all we have to go on, the intruder theory introduces doubt - just like a multitude of other possible scenarios would - but it does not convince me beyond reasonable doubt.
But, I am an advocate of innocent until proven guilty and would willingly keep an open mind to listen to all the evidence once presented before passing a final judgement.
Then again, I don't believe the system is infallible either, anyone here think OJ Simpson is innocent just because his trial found him not guilty?
We don't know what he said, as the BBC article says he shouted for her to call the police, not get out of the house and in that situation I would expect a reply, yes.
The info is all to sketchy and changes by the hour to be able to make any definite conclusion, doesn't mean we can't form a general opinion though and speculate
I definitely think he can use his unique situation, he genuinely must have grown up feeling potentially vulnerable to a level that most can't understand.
If I was in the dark thinking there was an intruder, I would be quiet as a mouse and proceed with caution. I would quietly pick up anything I thought could be used to protect myself and creep around seeing what was there, I also can't imagine I would put the lights on. Done it quite a few times and same every time. But then that's me.
If I was in the dark thinking there was an intruder, I would be quiet as a mouse and proceed with caution. I would quietly pick up anything I thought could be used to protect myself and creep around seeing what was there, I also can't imagine I would put the lights on. Done it quite a few times and same every time. But then that's me.
One his, one hers according to the guardian page - no mention about useage/possible useage or anything other than there were phones in there that means they were arguing.
What were they doing? txting each other infront of the mirror? Thats seems as far fetched as some other things in this case
What were they doing? txting each other infront of the mirror? Thats seems as far fetched as some other things in this case
Caporegime
Sounds like an episode of CSI, especially with that detective now being charged with attempted murder on an old case.
Don
I think it's safe to say that this trial will be explosive given how the bail hearing has went!
Permabanned
- Joined
- 25 Oct 2004
- Posts
- 9,078
Having lived in SA for quite a while I think I have a good enough understanding about crime in the area specially in Pretoria seeing as I have family living there anyway.
It is and always has been a shoot first ask question later society, criminals are ruthless and will maim or kill for even the smallest of things. Car jackings often end with corpses in the road. I firmly believe his testimony early on was what happened.
He thought his girlfriend was in bed, the lights were out it was pitch black (as confirmed) you couldn't see a thing inside the room, he gets the fan from the balcony which would have had minor light from the moon.
Hears a noise thinks its an intruder and goes to investigate with gun in hand, if he did indeed shout out and his girlfriend didn't answer then chances are he would have assumed it was a burglar and opened fire.
Either way if he is found guilty he will spend a long time behind bars, if not guilty he will still have to live with the fact he killed the girl he planned to marry.
It is and always has been a shoot first ask question later society, criminals are ruthless and will maim or kill for even the smallest of things. Car jackings often end with corpses in the road. I firmly believe his testimony early on was what happened.
He thought his girlfriend was in bed, the lights were out it was pitch black (as confirmed) you couldn't see a thing inside the room, he gets the fan from the balcony which would have had minor light from the moon.
Hears a noise thinks its an intruder and goes to investigate with gun in hand, if he did indeed shout out and his girlfriend didn't answer then chances are he would have assumed it was a burglar and opened fire.
Either way if he is found guilty he will spend a long time behind bars, if not guilty he will still have to live with the fact he killed the girl he planned to marry.
the safest thing to do would be call the police stay in the room with the gun trained on the door and tell the intruder you are armed (possibly firing a warnign shot) and tell them to get out..
And let the fellow in the room fire 12 bullets through the door, potentially killing you and anyone with you?
Safest, yeah, that makes sense.
When the guy on the other side of the door could very well have a sawn off or similar.
When the guy on the other side of the door could very well have a sawn off or similar.
Associate
adjourned again
BREAKING NEWS The hearing is abruptly adjourned until 08:00 GMT on Friday.
Magistrate Desmond Nair explains that administrative reasons of the court are to blame.
Mr Pistorius will spend another night in police custody.
BREAKING NEWS The hearing is abruptly adjourned until 08:00 GMT on Friday.
Magistrate Desmond Nair explains that administrative reasons of the court are to blame.
Mr Pistorius will spend another night in police custody.