-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: Would you cancel a streaming subscription if it started showing paid ads?
Oscar Pistorius: The Appeal
- Thread starter MickeyD
- Start date
Xarog
Honorary Master
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2006
- Messages
- 19,038
- Reaction score
- 175
Having heard the screams of other people genuinely surprised by house invaders in the middle of the night, I can tell you that such screams barely sound human. And they're LOUD.And yet the famous challenge Roux put to everyone at the start of him showing OP scream like a girl never happened
Considering OP's account, it would be more surprising if he didn't scream at the top of his lungs, and panic tends to cause your vocal chords to go castrati.
marine1
Honorary Master
So you think it was op screaming?
I also find it weird the male domestic never heard or saw anything
Xarog
Honorary Master
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2006
- Messages
- 19,038
- Reaction score
- 175
I'm saying that the judge could have gone either way on the issue.
marine1
Honorary Master
Agreed but I don't see it on the murder conviction.
Sure the screaming was never going to be an easy sell.
Everything else points to murder
Xarog
Honorary Master
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2006
- Messages
- 19,038
- Reaction score
- 175
The problem is that the state did not prove so beyond a reasonable doubt with respect to the appeal. The point is that what the Judge ruled with regards to the scream is a question of fact not law. Thus it could well be that the court rules she took that into account in terms of her ruling what OP's state of mind was with respect to who he thought he was shooting at.
http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/D/DolusEventualis.aspx
It matters who OP thought he was shooting at because that by itself forms the basis of the dolus eventualis claim. If OP did not realise that his shooting might cause the death of a person who did not mean him harm because it honestly never entered his head that it might be someone other than a robber inside the bathroom, then the crime is one of negligence and thus murder is not the appropriate sentence.
Edit: http://www.iol.co.za/news/south-africa/murder-vs-culpable-homicide-1.476127
Last edited:
No sane person will buy Oscar's version. The only option is to reject it outright.
What is left is Oscar firing 4 shots through the door executing his girlfriend.
Look at it the other way, if it wasnt for the judge's inexplicable belief in oscars ludicrous story why would he not be sitting in prison right now with 11 years left to go?
What is left is Oscar firing 4 shots through the door executing his girlfriend.
Look at it the other way, if it wasnt for the judge's inexplicable belief in oscars ludicrous story why would he not be sitting in prison right now with 11 years left to go?
marine1
Honorary Master
And she made the error saying she takes his sorry but in the same breath he was a terrible witness.
So which is it then?
You cant have it both ways
marine1
Honorary Master
Well the Judge in the SCA disagreed.
He said it doesnt matter who was behind the door, point is OP should have foreseen death of he victim whoever it could be and it doesnt matter if it was Reeva or the Pope.
he never answered questions directly because he was too busy trying to fit his answers into his false storyline.
marine1
Honorary Master
Correct but how then could Masipa take his story over everyone else when she herself admitted he was a terrible witness????
It doesnt make sense and the SCA judges even commented on that
Its funny when you lie, its hard to remember the "facts"
When you have nothing to hide, no sotry to make up and no coaching to remember, you cannot be "caught out"
exactly right.
but remember gerrie was mean to oscar /s. and the media spotlight put him under immense pressure /s. given these factors the judge had sympathy for oscar so all is forgiven ...fking ridiculous
marine1
Honorary Master
exactly right.
but remember gerrie was mean to oscar /s. and the media spotlight put him under immense pressure /s. given these factors the judge had sympathy for oscar so all is forgiven ...fking ridiculous
Yup, it was pathetic. Look I concede the screams and the fight was never proved.
We can all agree
What we cant agree on is that you cant shoot blindly into a cubicle that small through a closed door and not foresee someone behind that door will die
Geoff.D
Honorary Master
Well at least the SCA Judges could "see through" all the BS and get to the nub of the matter.
(1) He fired through a closed door using a very powerful firearm.
(2) He should have certainly, (if as was claimed) know what the potential for killing someone was.
(3) He was NOT in immediate danger (there was a closed door between him and the potential/imagined assailant).
(4) He still went ahead with his actions (for whatever reason)
(5) The Law then needs to decide what the punishment should be ......
And that is the nub of the matter ----- Guilty of killing a person, (pre-meditated/or not/by accident).
(1) He fired through a closed door using a very powerful firearm.
(2) He should have certainly, (if as was claimed) know what the potential for killing someone was.
(3) He was NOT in immediate danger (there was a closed door between him and the potential/imagined assailant).
(4) He still went ahead with his actions (for whatever reason)
(5) The Law then needs to decide what the punishment should be ......
And that is the nub of the matter ----- Guilty of killing a person, (pre-meditated/or not/by accident).
Last edited:
MagicDude4Eva
Banned
Just the other day I chatted with some one about the acquittal in the Visagie trial - and although such incidents are always tragic, why is it that people who happen to "accidentally" kill family members should not be prosecuted on some humanitarian ground as the death of a close relative is perceived as enough punishment already.
Shouldn't the justice system in such cases disregard the relationship with the victim and rather focus on the actual evidence - aka "Oops, I accidentally blew up my wife / drove over my kid - I should not go to prison, as I am suffering too much already". Even in the Visagie case, there was no imminent danger, as I understand the daughter was leaving the property and the father fired shots from inside the house through one of the windows.
Shouldn't the justice system in such cases disregard the relationship with the victim and rather focus on the actual evidence - aka "Oops, I accidentally blew up my wife / drove over my kid - I should not go to prison, as I am suffering too much already". Even in the Visagie case, there was no imminent danger, as I understand the daughter was leaving the property and the father fired shots from inside the house through one of the windows.
I liked the part where Justice Leach asked Barry Roux well why did Oscar think that someone was coming out the door, he was after all standing right infront of the door, and could have seen if there was any movement - there was none as the door was locked. Just another ridiculous story by Oscar.
Notwithstanding that, there can be no comparison drawn between the lifelong bond between a man and his daughter and then this case as oscar met reeva on 4 November 2012 and shot her on 14 February 2013. That's 3 and a half months he knew her. In that short time they had numerous arguments and oubursts by pistorius among the infamous "I'm scared of you sometimes" sms.
A couple of things where it is different
- Vleis Visagie was protecting his property from being stolen/Oscar lived in a security complex with security guards at the gate
- Visage shot once. If he shot once and ran up and fired 3 more shots it would have been an execution not an accident/Oscar shot 4 times
- Knowing he killed his own daughter was seen as punishment enough/Oscar's loss is debatable as there are conflicting testimony of how much he loved Reeva
If Oscar gets found not guilty of murder it would set a precedence. Firing multiple shots through a door is OK because you say you were scared even if you're not scared enough to leave a ladder , open window in your bathroom, open sliding door and not fix your outside beams or get a guard dog.
Yes the two cases are entirely different. No need to really even get into it.
As far as the things Oscar did/didnt do, someone should really write up a list of all the inconsistencies in his evidence and behaviour contrary to his portrayed state of mind. I suspect that list would be 10 pages long... :wtf: