Sorry, I'm referring to the questioning today, and his surprise at being handed a loaded gun. The quote you mention shows that he's perfectly happy with someone else taking the fall on his behalf, but not that he is negligent when it comes to firearms.
Oscar Pistorius thread
- Thread starter Gilly
- Start date
Sorry, I'm referring to the questioning today, and his surprise at being handed a loaded gun. The quote you mention shows that he's perfectly happy with someone else taking the fall on his behalf, but not that he is negligent when it comes to firearms.
That's the way I see it, they have to prove intention - if they can't do that he's either found not guilty, or they reduce the charge to something like manslaughter and he pleads guilty.
Well, how you can be in control of a firearm in a public place, for it to go off - apparently for no reason at all, then when questioned claim that it just happened and you were acting with proper care and attention the whole time, I don't think the court will accept it.
He is totally negligent as far as I'm concerned, he even admitted negligence in relation to his storage of ammunition at his house.
Also, I've done basic firearms training - one of the main things they teach you is that any gun handed to you, you treat as loaded, all the time - no exceptions. There's no excuse for letting a gun go off in public, then claiming "omg I don't know how" if someone hands you a firearm, loaded or unloaded - you cannot deny all knowledge if it goes off on your possession,
Last edited:
Which is how I'd see it going if the shooting was the only thing being persued.
Trouble is because there are the other 3 firearms offences also being done at the same time, I can see not guilty on the schedule 6 (murder) and guilty on one of the other 3.
Bottom line walking free, but paying a buttload of money. Thats just a feeling mind.
Actually, it's surprisingly easy to get wrong. You think they are there beside you, but you can't hear them breathing, and you don't want to put your hand out to check because then you will wake them. Happens to me quite often because the wife gets up before me, or if she's having a bad night, she goes to the spare room so as not to wake me.
If you wake up and assume your partner is still in bed, then therefore the noise you hear from the bathroom must be an intruder, right? If you're a paranoid gun nut just woken up, too many steroids in your body, you make a wrong assumption, and the other wrong assumptions follow on.
Does anyone know why he's being prosecuted for murder, rather than manslaughter?
I've seen some of the trial, and that prosecution lawyer is brutal. If it was a jury system in South Africa, he'd be generating a huge amount of sympathy for Pistorius.
They think there was intent, simply.
Yep have to agree, over the years I've done it many times - getting up in the night to go to the loo or go and see to the kids and walking into the wife on the way - promptly scaring the bejeezus out of both of us.
Was part of the bail hearing last year, cant remember the exact details, but defence was pushing for a Schedule 5 (manslaughter iirc), prosecution went for schedule 6 which they got.
Aye thats about right, iirc the defence didnt do enough to convince the judge to downgrade to Schedule 5 during the bail hearing.
Yea he's definately giving it some beans pushing for OP to make mistakes. That whole approach imo tells me they dont have anything solid otherwise they'd be hammering that home.
Last edited:
It's easy to hear something, say it and completely forget about it later on. I've been reading a wiki page for something before and only about half-way in do I realise I had read it before. Also just because a witness says something doesn't mean it's true or reliable.
Is there any reason to say he was a gun nut? Simply owning a gun doesn't make you one.
Yep this as well, my room is pretty dark at night but i can still see my missus in the bed and even when i wake up to go to the loo.
If he was so 'spooked' by an intruder, why didnt he call out her name to see if she was ok or whereabouts she was. Surely as a loved one you would make sure she is ok first then go find the burgular.
His whole pathetic crying, vomiting and emotional breakdowns are getting tiresome...none of his evidence really holds up.
If he is guilty, i think he is then i hope they nail him to the wall.
It seems pretty clear cut to me.
She got out of bed to go to the toilet. Did she:
a) Throw back the cover, leave it, and head for the toilet?
or
b) Throw back the cover, make her side of the bed, then head to the toilet?
Reason I ask, is, OP believes he rolled over and asked Reeva to call the police. Did it look to him like someone was in the bed? Probably not, he knew exactly where she was.
She got out of bed to go to the toilet. Did she:
a) Throw back the cover, leave it, and head for the toilet?
or
b) Throw back the cover, make her side of the bed, then head to the toilet?
Reason I ask, is, OP believes he rolled over and asked Reeva to call the police. Did it look to him like someone was in the bed? Probably not, he knew exactly where she was.
Add to that the guy is a gun enthusiast, so knows better than anyone you're not supposed to shoot through sheet rock walls or doors. You should only shoot once you've ID'd your target. Some gun owners go as far as buying low penetration type ammo for home defense, so that it won't go through doors or walls (or if it does it's velocity will be severely reduced) particularly those living in apartment blocks were putting a round through a wall could unintentionally kill a neighbour.
You never get out of bed without putting the cover back down?
Even if he couldn't see due to there being zero light in the bedroom surely anyone in their right mind would have at least felt the bed before running off shooting at noises? I just don't understand how anyone can be so negligent towards a loved one.
He does seem to have a bit of an unhealthy obsession with guns and I'd wager he has probably fantasized about 'bagging an intruder' and the positive publicity that would bring, which might explain his gung-ho approach.
He does seem to have a bit of an unhealthy obsession with guns and I'd wager he has probably fantasized about 'bagging an intruder' and the positive publicity that would bring, which might explain his gung-ho approach.
Last edited:
And being a Gun nut doesn't mean you are a murderer. Its just the prosecution trying to paint an unsavory picture to persuade the judge without using any actual evidence related to the crime or at least "set the scene" using circumstantial evidence.
What are you basing this unhealthy obsession on?
Going to firing ranges and learning to be a proficient marksman with a variety of guns, playing around with guns in public restaurants, always seemingly having one at hand despite living on a secured estate and chasing after various noises in the house like he's Rambo, casually talking about guns being zombie stoppers.
Those aren't really the actions of someone who just keeps a gun for protection in case the worst comes to the worst.
Last edited:
There is absolutely nothing wrong with that first sentence if your country's law allows it.
The fact that he shot his gun wildly through a door at his girlfriend probably....
Some countries allow 9yr old girls to be married off it doesn't make it any less deranged, there's no reason for civilians to be expert marksmen with a wide arsenal of weaponry.
Last edited:
Yeah but on the assumption that it really was a mistake having a gun for personal protection in South Africa doesn't make you a gun nut.
Going to firing ranges and learning how to shoot is something that all responsible gun owners should do though, especially ones who want to keep it for protection. Calling his ammunition zombie stoppers because it exploded a melon isn't proof either, that's the type of thing a comic nerd would say as well. The only thing there that really register as nutty behaviour to me is playing around with one in a restaurant but then again he was passed it from his friend wasn't he? I wouldn't say wanting to see a gun your mate says he has is being a gun nut rather than being curious.
Of course even if he was a gun nut I don't think that should really change anything as far as the trial goes.
If you are going to keep guns for protection you should be able to use them accurately, I'm sure I don't have to explain why to you.