Oscar Pistorius thread

manic111 said:
Where have I said that I buy that story? I've said that he deserves a fair trial, something which you seem dead against.
Click to expand...

He's getting a fair trial, I've never said I was against it. I just think he's guilty, he's a coward who can't face the consequences of his acts and he's probably a predator who has been supressing his violent impulses until that night.
 
Zethor said:
He's getting a fair trial, I've never said I was against it. I just think he's guilty, he's a coward who can't face the consequences of his acts and he's probably a predator who has been supressing his violent impulses until that night.
Click to expand...

That's a pretty strong statement to make. At this stage, we don't know if he's guilty of murder, or whether he made a serious mistake, meaning that any inferences about his character which follow are groundless.
 
Gilly said:
The prison system could still be said to have tried to do everything they can to prevent it. Could they do that if he retained his legs?
Click to expand...

No I doubt they could but heath and safety does not justify taking them away in my opinion.
Lets not forget he is claiming he only opened fire because he was on his stumps and felt vulnerable without his legs, that was in his own home, while armed.
How do you think he would feel in a prison environment with out them?
 
nick.lidgett said:
So you think its fair to lock him up AND take his legs from him, why exactly? because they are easy to take off? why deny him a right to walk? his imprisonment is punishment enough, surely? they dont hack off an able bodies killers legs do they?
Click to expand...

I just won't feel sorry for him if that's what he gets, fair or not fair.
 
Zethor said:
We'll see won't we? His story is laughable. Burglar comes in and locks himself in the bathroom? What for? To dig an escape tunnel? Why did Reeva lock the door anyway? Do you lock yourself in the bathroom when your partner is sleeping two feet away?

He's got guilty written all over, there's no way in hell he's getting away with this.
Click to expand...

If he believed Reeva was in bed and then heard someone in the bathroom he wouldn't question WHY a burglar would choose to go in the bathroom. He'd just think they were in there.
 
I don't buy his story at all.

Before shooting through the door you would shout at them, either get out, or I have a gun, something at least. I mean who really wants to potentially kill someone?

At this point she would say "oh dear it's me in here you wally"
 
Jambo said:
If he believed Reeva was in bed and then heard someone in the bathroom he wouldn't question WHY a burglar would choose to go in the bathroom. He'd just think they were in there.
Click to expand...

Yes and when you hear noises in the other room you pick up your gun and start shooting like a manic, right? What if it was the bloody wind? Better empty that clip, just in case..

It's a ridiculous story no matter how you look at it.
 
Last edited:
Any sane person in his position...

"That you babe?" ... "Who the devil are you?" ... "Gerrof my land".
 
nick.lidgett said:
No I doubt they could but heath and safety does not justify taking them away in my opinion.
Lets not forget he is claiming he only opened fire because he was on his stumps and felt vulnerable without his legs, that was in his own home, while armed.
How do you think he would feel in a prison environment with out them?
Click to expand...

You don't need to justify to me why you think he should keep them. He would already be in for a very rough time of it in an SA prison being such an infamous person, and I'm not advocating taking them away.

That does need to be weighed against the danger posed by them though.
 
nick.lidgett said:
Although i think your statement is pretty moronic, disturbingly this might happen, I read today the Pretoria Central prison where he would be sent if he is found to be guilty, would indeed take his artificial legs away in case they were used as a weapon, they guy would be confined to a wheel chair.

I disagree with this, if he is found guilty, thats all well and good, lock him away for his crimes, but to take his legs away is going too far.
Click to expand...

Well no he murdered someone, it's the least he deserves.
 
IvanDobskey said:
Well surely the bare minimum he's guilty of is unlawful killing? There's no doubt at all that he killed her whether premeditated or not.
Click to expand...

Why "unlawful"?

I appreciate the point that, arguably, all killing is unlawful, but if it was a pure accident that's debateable.
 
manic111 said:
Why "unlawful"?

I appreciate the point that, arguably, all killing is unlawful, but if it was a pure accident that's debateable.
Click to expand...

You don't fire off four rounds through a door with someone on the other side and accidentally hit them though do you?

He intended to kill whoever was on the other side of the door. The only thing in question was whether he knew it was her or not.
 
Last edited:
nick.lidgett said:
Although i think your statement is pretty moronic, disturbingly this might happen, I read today the Pretoria Central prison where he would be sent if he is found to be guilty, would indeed take his artificial legs away in case they were used as a weapon, they guy would be confined to a wheel chair.
Click to expand...

Because a wheelchair (or parts of) can't be used as a weapon?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom