| Autorius |
Tema: Oscar Pistorius |
113 atsakymų
|
|
|
Well Quote ( Yucel Kat @ September 12th 2014,12:23:05 ) Hope that the Judge verdicts to removes his arms
Nope five years, probably be out within two.
Judging by the amount Mr Winkley was trying to defend the actions of Mr Pistorius I would have to say it looks like you got it so DAM WRONG!
Oh and if you want to flame this then watch http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b04mp8w9/russell-howard... @ 05:29. Say it better then I could ever.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My only question would be:
" if it was an intruder, why in the hell would he be in the bathroom (even with locked door) "?
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Niels Wolters @ October 30th 2014,07:17:25 ) My only question would be:
" if it was an intruder, why in the hell would he be in the bathroom (even with locked door) "?
Perscription meds
Happens here all the time.
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Marcus Keeley @ October 30th 2014,03:54:57 ) Well Quote ( Yucel Kat @ September 12th 2014,12:23:05 )
Hope that the Judge verdicts to removes his arms
Nope five years, probably be out within two.
Judging by the amount Mr Winkley was trying to defend the actions of Mr Pistorius I would have to say it looks like you got it so DAM WRONG!
Oh and if you want to flame this then watch http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b04mp8w9/russell-howard... @ 05:29. Say it better then I could ever.
If you think that being objective is an attempt at defending someone then I'd really question your judgement on everything and anything.
|
|
|
|
|
Oscar got 5 years and can walk for good behaviour after 10months.
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Lourence Erasmus @ October 30th 2014,09:10:42 ) Oscar got 5 years and can walk for good behaviour after 10months.
There is a joke in there somewhere. ;p
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Michael Winkley @ October 30th 2014,09:29:44 ) Quote ( Lourence Erasmus @ October 30th 2014,09:10:42 )
Oscar got 5 years and can walk for good behaviour after 10months.
There is a joke in there somewhere. ;p
Uhhh "good behaviour", maybe is the joke :P :D
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Michael Winkley @ October 30th 2014,09:29:44 ) Quote ( Lourence Erasmus @ October 30th 2014,09:10:42 )
Oscar got 5 years and can walk for good behaviour after 10months.
There is a joke in there somewhere. ;p
Oh dear... too soon?
http://jp16.r0tt.com/l_ab0add00-99eb-11e2-8c49-299d37d00016.jpg
It's all sad really... probably just an argument that spiralled out of control and he just wanted to scare her when she ran away to be alone. It's a common situation that couples find themselves in (without killing each other all the time of course)
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, it wreaks on irony.
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Krikkeljan De Jong @ October 30th 2014,09:43:00 ) It's a common situation that couples find themselves in
It is???
Personally, I think he wasn't trying to kill her, I believe the intruder story. May make me naive, but whatever.
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Kirsty Ridley @ October 30th 2014,09:48:55 ) Quote ( Krikkeljan De Jong @ October 30th 2014,09:43:00 )
It's a common situation that couples find themselves in
It is???
Personally, I think he wasn't trying to kill her, I believe the intruder story. May make me naive, but whatever.
Of course it is... most couples will argue from time to time, one will get upset and will want to escape into isolation. A bathroom makes a great place for that.
Reading about their previous arguments, it's highly probable that they had a bad argument with name calling... perhaps she referred to his disability in an appalling manner. At this point, he lost it and just wanted to show he was more than capable of being a man - not necessarily intending to kill her.
The intruder story is bs... "yes, dear... keeping sleeping in bed and not mention the noise in the bathroom". People go to the bathroom... sometimes you don't realize when someone does go. Even in an area where break-ins happen, you don't automatically assume its an intruder, you'll more than likely assume its someone who lives in the house.
And besides, if you think its an intruder that also might be armed.. why only shoot 4 shots in a specific area?
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Krikkeljan De Jong @ October 30th 2014,10:35:17 ) The intruder story is bs...
Totally agree here.
If I hear something in the house, the 1st thing I do is wake my wife up when I about to go investigate. She needs to be fully awake and alert in case there really is an intruder.
The bottom line for me is: He shot through a closed door with intention to kill without (allegedly) knowing where Reeva was at that time.
|
|
|
|
I almost knocked my little girl out with an iron once, heard a noise, looked in her room saw what I thought was her sleeping under the duvet. Turns out she was downstairs and it was just a pile of covers ;) Luckily I didn't actually hit her, just raised the iron for a hit :P Traumatised the poor kid lol
But, yeah... I went to investigate first, not sure I would if I had no legs though ;)
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Kirsty Ridley @ October 30th 2014,10:53:49 ) Traumatised the poor kid lol
That's going to happen you ours too some day... :P
She's 22months old and walking around in the house(from her room to ours), not afraid of the dark!!!
|
|
|
|
|
( Michael Winkley @ October If you think that being objective is an attempt at defending someone then I'd really question your judgement on everything and anything.
Problem with that statement you weren't trying to be objective.
To be objective you have to remain neutral, you clearly were defending his actions.
PS.
Quote ( Marcus Keeley @ September 11th 2014,23:27:31 ) Prosecutor summed it up perfectly during his closing argument he (Oscar Pistorius) armed himself and went down stairs knowing someone was in his the downstairs toilet irrespective of the fact it was his then gf and shot multiple times.
This is the statement you were objecting to from the start. (Later found out was a flat no stairs in location).
So if you wanted to object to something object to errors in my statement not with the statement itself. To object to the statement shows you are taking a side in the arguement.
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Krikkeljan De Jong @ October 30th 2014,10:35:17 )
Reading about their previous arguments, it's highly probable that they had a bad argument with name calling... perhaps she referred to his disability in an appalling manner. At this point, he lost it and just wanted to show he was more than capable of being a man - not necessarily intending to kill her.
Ah yes, the blame the victim argument. Clearly you have so much evidence that wasn't presented to the court that I've no doubt you'll volunteer your services as an expert witness for any potential retrial.
Fact is, Pistorious has a history of not reacting well. Look at the way he threw a strop when beaten in the Paralympics. Stated publicly the Brazilian guy was cheating with illegal blades. Which was incorrect.
The only person to blame for this is Pistorious, 100%. I've zero doubt, based upon the way the prosecution destroyed the defence in the case it was murder. The expert witnesses presented by the defence were generally clueless.
|
|
|
|
|
The Judge was bribed, Happens all the time in SA
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Marcus Keeley @ October 30th 2014,11:32:54 ) ( Michael Winkley @ October
If you think that being objective is an attempt at defending someone then I'd really question your judgement on everything and anything.
Problem with that statement you weren't trying to be objective.
To be objective you have to remain neutral, you clearly were defending his actions.
PS.
Quote ( Marcus Keeley @ September 11th 2014,23:27:31 )
Prosecutor summed it up perfectly during his closing argument he (Oscar Pistorius) armed himself and went down stairs knowing someone was in his the downstairs toilet irrespective of the fact it was his then gf and shot multiple times.
This is the statement you were objecting to from the start. (Later found out was a flat no stairs in location).
So if you wanted to object to something object to errors in my statement not with the statement itself. To object to the statement shows you are taking a side in the arguement.
Irony much? You accusing me of lacking impartiality whilst yourself having hung him without question.
I actually expressed zero by way of opinion either way; my posts clearly point to the lack of legal knowledge on your part. I dare say that I don't lack that knowledge, what with having studied the damned subject at university.
Did you even bother to read back on what I actually wrote? [/rhetorical question]
|
|
|
|
BTW, which side is the prosecutor on? And why exactly would you expect an objective opinion from such a person?
Pretty sure I objected to your/someone's guff before you even posted that; no need to check as I know that I did.
What amuses me most is that this clown thinks he can read my opinion on the subject matter; I'm neutral in everything I say, other than about politicians and bankers, whom can fry in hell...assuming it exists.
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Michael Winkley @ October 30th 2014,13:29:48 ) other than about politicians and bankers, whom can fry in hell...assuming it exists.
And lawyers too
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Michael Winkley @ October 30th 2014,13:29:48 ) BTW, which side is the prosecutor on? And why exactly would you expect an objective opinion from such a person?
Pretty sure I objected to your/someone's guff before you even posted that; no need to check as I know that I did.
Suppose the point being that the prosecutor tore holes in almost every part of the defence, gaining admissions that some of the defence "experts" has compiled their reports for the defence having heard what had already come out in the trial.
Based upon the way all parties performed in the trial, if you're looking for some nominal absolute truth, the defence version had way too many holes in it to be reasonably accepted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Lourence Erasmus @ October 30th 2014,10:52:55 ) he 1st thing I do is wake my wife up to let her go investigate
Fixed it for you, no problem ;)
|
|
|
|
|
#84 parašyta 2014-Spa-30, 13:52:52 (paskutinis taisymas 2014-Spa-30, 13:56:43, taisė Jon Day)
|
Cituoti
|
Quote ( Joe Manifold @ October 30th 2014,13:48:30 ) And lawyers too You forgot GPRO crew :P
*Edit*. Well not all of them....just one really :D ....Hello Michael, how are you mate? xxx
|
|
|
|
Martin, I'm not interested in whom is right; my entire contribution here has been to point out the fallacious reasoning expressed in this thread as a basis for a murder verdict; Marcus' knowledge of criminal intent is embarrassing.
Edit: Jon, I'm too hot to burn in hell. Try the Ice Maiden...
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Kevin Buis @ October 30th 2014,13:52:37 ) Quote ( Lourence Erasmus @ October 30th 2014,10:52:55 )
he 1st thing I do is wake my wife up to let her go investigate
Fixed it for you, no problem ;)
HAHAHA!!!
My wife will have no problem killing an intruder... if it meant keeping her precious out of harms way (I'm talking about our baby ;) )
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Lourence Erasmus @ October 30th 2014,14:50:30 ) My wife will have no problem killing an intruder... if it meant keeping her precious out of harms way (I'm talking about our baby ;) )
Thought you meant the one ring. :P
|
|
|
|
|
her precious => either wallet or credit card :P
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Martin Warnett @ October 30th 2014,12:47:34 ) Quote ( Krikkeljan De Jong @ October 30th 2014,10:35:17 )
Reading about their previous arguments, it's highly probable that they had a bad argument with name calling... perhaps she referred to his disability in an appalling manner. At this point, he lost it and just wanted to show he was more than capable of being a man - not necessarily intending to kill her.
Ah yes, the blame the victim argument. Clearly you have so much evidence that wasn't presented to the court that I've no doubt you'll volunteer your services as an expert witness for any potential retrial.
Fact is, Pistorious has a history of not reacting well. Look at the way he threw a strop when beaten in the Paralympics. Stated publicly the Brazilian guy was cheating with illegal blades. Which was incorrect.
The only person to blame for this is Pistorious, 100%. I've zero doubt, based upon the way the prosecution destroyed the defence in the case it was murder. The expert witnesses presented by the defence were generally clueless.
Eh? Their messages to each other were presented in court, perhaps you simply misread... I'm also not placing blame on the victim. I'm simply discussing a possible sequence of events.
Eg. a message to Oscar: "...When I feel you think u have me so why try anymore. I get snapped at and told my accents and voices are annoying. I touch your neck to show u I care and you tell me to stop. Stop chewing gum. Do this don't do that. You don't want to hear stuff cut me off..."
And thus I just proposed a situation thats happened time and time again... it's speculation nothing more.
Sorry that you feel the need to put me down without understanding what I'm saying :)
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Michael Winkley @ October 30th 2014,13:29:48 ) BTW, which side is the prosecutor on? And why exactly would you expect an objective opinion from such a person?
Pretty sure I objected to your/someone's guff before you even posted that; no need to check as I know that I did.
What amuses me most is that this clown thinks he can read my opinion on the subject matter; I'm neutral in everything I say, other than about politicians and bankers, whom can fry in hell...assuming it exists.
And the term Prosecutor should explain the his position, if you wanted to impartial then why not pull a quote from the Defence, to give a more balance view point?
Great you want to give a balanced account for Mr Pistorius, in that case you should only commenting on the facts of the case and not trying to justifiy his action with your own knowledge/beliefs. You ignore the facts you are no longer truly impartial.
PS.
And no I wasn't trying to be impartial. I had an opinion which appears to be supported by many other people I just chose to use the words of someone who I believe explained it far better then I could.
|
|
English
Deutsch
Español
Română
Italiano
Português
Português
Français
Polski
Русский
Български
Македонски
Српски
Nederlands
Vlaams
Suomi
Čeština
Magyar
Eesti keel
Slovenčina
Türkçe
Shqip
Ελληνικά
Hrvatski
Bahasa Melayu
Dansk
Pirate
