The problem is Pistorius has shouted at the intruder to get out - what's stopping the intruder shooting through the door likewise now knowing that Pistorius is on the otherside?
Oscar Pistorius thread
- Thread starter Gilly
- Start date
Could he not have stood around the corner?
Well there's basically no way he can be done for murder now, giving bail basically means they think there's reasonable doubt. The police and prosecution screwed it up so badly I highly doubt any new evidence will come into it for the actual trial. Worst case he gets manslaughter and a couple of years.
At least OJ will have a drinking buddy now.
At least OJ will have a drinking buddy now.
I don't believe that to be true.
Which I completely agree with you. I even think the presiding magistrate said something along the lines in his final summary. I'm really in two minds over this. When I started this post I thought it was justifiable, 20sec later and I've changed my mind. I wouldn't want to be on that jury if the facts remain the way they are. (which I can see happening)
Of course, with the benefit of hindsight and all that. When people are confronted with situations they're not used to, they don't necessarily do the right things.
Yup, I agree with you on that as well. It's a really difficult one, particularly considering how unique his situation of being a double amputee, but with the ability to get out of bed quickly enough to shoot somebody is. I can see from his point of view how such a situation might be terrifying, but on the other hand the court condoning violence of that level in any scary situation is incredibly dangerous.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
Sorry but, rubbish, bail has zero to do with reasonable doubt, at all. They were trying to establish two things, how serious the crime was(was it premeditated) and if he should get bail(which needs the level of crime to be known as a factor of if he gets bail).
They didn't have all the evidence(they may find no more, they might), bail was about two main things, was he a flight risk, was he likely to harm anyone while on bail awaiting trial, the judge decided, in large part based on the prosecutions insanely awful case, that he is neither likely to run not likely to harm anyone else.
IE a guy who raped a random woman would probably not get bail because, if he just likes raping random women there is every chance he'd do it again. In Pistorius's case, which current girlfriend is he likely to murder before the trial?
Last edited:
There's some bat crazy women out there, what's stopping one of them going out with OP before the trial?
He's guilty as sin. If you had a intruder, the first thing you do is wake the wife/kids/familywithout exception to see if they were OK.
Not rummage around in the dark for your gun next to the bed without noticing your spouse is not there! Or even trying to wake or speak to her.
No one deliberately confronts the thief attacker. (unless you intended to kill them from the offset) You defend yourself if you are being attacked, or from the threat of attack. Not from someone who is the other side of a closed door, no matter who they are. A single warning shot is possibly defending yourself. Shooting someone 4 times through a closed bathroom door is murder.
With luck he'll do the honorable thing and blow his own brains out.
Last edited:
I agree 100% but remember it's not about common sense, it's about what can be proven.
If the trial goes anything like the bail hearing, the girl will be found to have tried to murder OP and the four bullets ricocheted off the door onto herself.
This is true. Everyone deserves a fair trial and nobody should be found guilty for anything that is beyond reasonable doubt.
That said, I too agree that it doesn't seem reasonable to be shooting at someone behind a locked door meters away from where your girlfriends supposed to be sleeping moments after you've left the room without first checking she was still in bed. If it's not murder (via an argument of self defense) the guys still incredibly reckless and stupid and thus it's still manslaughter in my mind.
This is a forum, we speculate. Hopefully nobody here would actually cast their vote in a jury based on such speculations.
Did you follow the case, the facts that came out, or even what the magistrate said in his bail reading?
Here are a few for you:
- South African Police Commissioner announced that Lieutenant General Vineshkumar Moonoo is taking over, their top investigator.
- Forensic results were not complete on the ballistics, but early reports suggested that the angle of shots does not match Pistorious' affidavit of having fired without his legs on.
- No phone records were yet available. So there is nothing about whether any of the phones had been used, or what may have been said. This is something the Magistrate said is a key issue and a massive failing by the Prosecution.
- There is also no doubt other forensic evidence that is not yet available which may be able to determine if things were as has been described by the accused.
So its still early days for the Prosecution getting their case together. You can be sure its going to be a hell of a lot stronger come the trial proper.
It'd be classed as self defence, I believe. The intruder wouldn't have had any right to be there and here's a reasonable chance that they may be there to do harm.
Killing an intruder isn't illegal, though. Assuming he felt he was under immediate danger.
I guess people locked in the toilet can be pretty dangerous.