Discussion Thread #61 ~ the appeal~

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Trotterly said:
Something strange going on. The post I was replying to just disappeared!

I was going to say that much of the comment here seems motivated more by emotion than by a desire to see the facts.
Click to expand...

If a post disappears it is usually because the moderators feel its content is unacceptable.
 
Trotterly (can't click Reply With Quote):

It could have been my post. I have labored to translate my thoughts into English. It was difficult and I have changed permanently. Perhaps you had already answered at this time. Finally, I was not happy how I had explained my view. I was expecting a response from other members as: everything only antipathy, no logical facts. This answer I did not want to receive and I deleted the post.
The facts and OP's lies incl. the recognition of these lies by the judge you just can not bring logic to the point, in any case I can not.
Urgently I have to learn how to shut my mouth, but I'm not always able to do this.
 
Colin de France said:
..that's one of the reasons why i believe the prosecution did a bad job if not an extremely bad job in court, he was not under imminent attack even by his own words, even if he had thought the intruder was coming out the WC, simply because that potential action did not constitute an immediate threat to his life and secondly again by his own words he had shouted for them to get out.... thirdly it was him who held the gun ...and that was a fact ....lastly and above all the psychological act of the intruder entering the WC was symbolic of someone hiding or running away and not of someone confrontationaly aggressive....
Click to expand...

I think the problem with this argument is that there have been other similar cases where people have shot blindly at someone they couldn't see without knowing they pose a threat and they haven't been convicted of murder. Shouting for the intruder to get out indicates only that he didn't want a confrontation surely. Yes, he held the gun but then so what - if there had been an intruder they might have been armed too. There is nothing in the state's case about the psychological act of an intruder entering the wc to hide - it does not follow that an intruder isn't confrontational in hiding as they may have intended to hide and come out later to surprise the occupants of the house. Given the open window, in this case it would be an intruder who deliberately stayed.
 
Colin de France said:
...that's a big jump, from asking someone to get out of his house, hearing a noise from someone already hiding in the WC and then shooting them dead without a prior warning, ...if you can find sense in that then you really do deserve a medal ...! Then of course we can discuss the need to fire four shots, one, then three, the first one identified the position of the body, the last three were to finish the work, that's what happened, plain and simple murder.....the problem was that we had a Mr Nice Guy prosecution more interested in his public image and playing up to the cameras than taking Pistorius apart, really apart, there were elements which were not pushed hard enough....as for the judge ..
Click to expand...

I don't think you can rely on the 1 then 3 shots argument. The ballistics were unclear and the only witness to hear the four shots was Mrs VdM and she heard 4 in a row. Accepting the time of Johnson's phone call as the state has done means that Mrs Burger's 'shots' were not the real shots (as the close neighbour's evidence and phone call shows).

It's a more interesting question if the shots were 4 in a row as it does seem too many shots on the one hand but on the other it doesn't allow any time for thought between shots so maybe the number doesn't matter ie if the first was legitimate (as in similar cases but where just 1 shot was fired) then maybe they are all legitimate.
 
GR_Turner said:
I think the problem with this argument is that there have been other similar cases where people have shot blindly at someone they couldn't see without knowing they pose a threat and they haven't been convicted of murder. Shouting for the intruder to get out indicates only that he didn't want a confrontation surely. Yes, he held the gun but then so what - if there had been an intruder they might have been armed too. There is nothing in the state's case about the psychological act of an intruder entering the wc to hide - it does not follow that an intruder isn't confrontational in hiding as they may have intended to hide and come out later to surprise the occupants of the house. Given the open window, in this case it would be an intruder who deliberately stayed.
Click to expand...

...a very whimsical explanation for taking someones life.....i remind you that Pistoroius was not in immediate danger and that no prior warning was given...
 
GR_Turner said:
I don't think you can rely on the 1 then 3 shots argument. The ballistics were unclear and the only witness to hear the four shots was Mrs VdM and she heard 4 in a row. Accepting the time of Johnson's phone call as the state has done means that Mrs Burger's 'shots' were not the real shots (as the close neighbour's evidence and phone call shows).

It's a more interesting question if the shots were 4 in a row as it does seem too many shots on the one hand but on the other it doesn't allow any time for thought between shots so maybe the number doesn't matter ie if the first was legitimate (as in similar cases but where just 1 shot was fired) then maybe they are all legitimate.
Click to expand...

"legitimate" ...what was legitimate about firing with no prior warning and not in immediate danger which is an absolute in self-defense.....if the gun just went off, then there's fault.....
 
GR_Turner said:
I think the problem with this argument is that there have been other similar cases where people have shot blindly at someone they couldn't see without knowing they pose a threat and they haven't been convicted of murder. Shouting for the intruder to get out indicates only that he didn't want a confrontation surely. Yes, he held the gun but then so what - if there had been an intruder they might have been armed too. There is nothing in the state's case about the psychological act of an intruder entering the wc to hide - it does not follow that an intruder isn't confrontational in hiding as they may have intended to hide and come out later to surprise the occupants of the house. Given the open window, in this case it would be an intruder who deliberately stayed.
Click to expand...


BIB


If he didn't want a confrontation why on earth did he not leave the bedroom by its door and trigger the alarm to bring help (which few people really believed had been set because, had he set it, the outside beams would have triggered an intruder). We learned that the bedroom door did not lock properly because he used to jam his cricket bat against it to stop it being opened. Of course, even if it had been locked he could have used the key and left the property. He could have used his phone to call the guards, taking only seconds to do. I am afraid I think your comment of not wanting a confrontation is a non-starter. His disposition was all about wanting confrontation - think of the number of times he got involved in physical and verbal disputes. His problem with anger management failure is well documented.
 
GR_Turner said:
I think the problem with this argument is that there have been other similar cases where people have shot blindly at someone they couldn't see without knowing they pose a threat and they haven't been convicted of murder. Shouting for the intruder to get out indicates only that he didn't want a confrontation surely. Yes, he held the gun but then so what - if there had been an intruder they might have been armed too. There is nothing in the state's case about the psychological act of an intruder entering the wc to hide - it does not follow that an intruder isn't confrontational in hiding as they may have intended to hide and come out later to surprise the occupants of the house. Given the open window, in this case it would be an intruder who deliberately stayed.
Click to expand...
BIB - yes, they might have been armed. But OP was pointing a gun right at the closed toilet door. He had the advantage over the "intruder" - the "intruder" who would have have known he was going to get shot the second he came out. Who do you think had the advantage here? The intruder, shut in the toilet, or OP armed and screaming outside the door, knowing he could just blast away as soon as the intruder made an appearance? He didn't even wait for the person to do that! The door didn't even open. OP's account of how he thought he heard wood move or the door handle move, still didn't give him carte blanche to shoot and kill the person behind it when he was actually not under any threat at all. Plus the toilet door opened outwards, so there was practically zero chance in hell of the intruder being able to overcome the armed "guard" outside. You really think his actions were worthy of a medal? Killing someone who had absolutely no chance of escape? When he never even caught a glimpse of this alleged intruder?
 
Interested Bystander said:
BIB


If he didn't want a confrontation why on earth did he not leave the bedroom by its door and trigger the alarm to bring help (which few people really believed had been set because, had he set it, the outside beams would have triggered an intruder). We learned that the bedroom door did not lock properly because he used to jam his cricket bat against it to stop it being opened. Of course, even if it had been locked he could have used the key and left the property. He could have used his phone to call the guards, taking only seconds to do. I am afraid I think your comment of not wanting a confrontation is a non-starter. His disposition was all about wanting confrontation - think of the number of times he got involved in physical and verbal disputes. His problem with anger management failure is well documented.
Click to expand...

The expert testimony was that he was a fight rather than flight person but more than that I think his actions were absolutely right if there had been an intruder. He was on his stumps and would have been particularly vulnerable the second the intruder started to advance to where Reeva was. I think my instinct would also have been to contain the intruder as soon as possible before they attacked.

Wasting 30 seconds putting on legs before fleeing down the stairs would have been stupid.

The alarm would only have been sensible if it was a silent alarm and could be reached without exposure to the corridor. Even after an alarm is triggered help is still minutes away by which time the intruder could have struck and be gone.

Without doubt the best defensive position would have been to stay crouched in the bedroom where it was dark. You would have the advantage as there was some light at the end of the corridor where you could see the intruder but they could not see you. But this could have put Reeva in the line of fire.

The important thing to remember is that this was split second thinking.
 
Trotterly said:
The expert testimony was that he was a fight rather than flight person but more than that I think his actions were absolutely right if there had been an intruder. He was on his stumps and would have been particularly vulnerable the second the intruder started to advance to where Reeva was. I think my instinct would also have been to contain the intruder as soon as possible before they attacked.

Wasting 30 seconds putting on legs before fleeing down the stairs would have been stupid.

The alarm would only have been sensible if it was a silent alarm and could be reached without exposure to the corridor. Even after an alarm is triggered help is still minutes away by which time the intruder could have struck and be gone.

Without doubt the best defensive position would have been to stay crouched in the bedroom where it was dark. You would have the advantage as there was some light at the end of the corridor where you could see the intruder but they could not see you. But this could have put Reeva in the line of fire.

The important thing to remember is that this was split second thinking.
Click to expand...


I find I disagree with virtually everything you write. It is almost as though we "attended" two different trials.
 
Interested Bystander said:
I find I disagree with virtually everything you write. It is almost as though we "attended" two different trials.
Click to expand...

..i agree with that....apart from that there was nothing "split second" about the whole affair....the way i see this is if we can show just how many elements don't make sense with the intruder version then that can only lead to a cover up story for having shot RS on purpose. ...he's already put his foot in it by not saying that he gave a warning..
 
...i think this is the heart of the affair and an area which was not pushed hard enough in court ...
 
Colin de France said:
...a very whimsical explanation for taking someones life.....i remind you that Pistoroius was not in immediate danger and that no prior warning was given...
Click to expand...

It's not my explanation, it's the way the law in SA has worked in the past. Look at the Visagie or Boschoff cases or others. What you say is true in all those cases and there was no murder conviction, or indeed outcry at the lack of one.
 
Colin de France said:
"legitimate" ...what was legitimate about firing with no prior warning and not in immediate danger which is an absolute in self-defense.....if the gun just went off, then there's fault.....
Click to expand...

Again, look at the other cases like Boschoff. Exactly as you describe above - either no murder charges or no convictions and no outcry over those cases.
 
Colin de France said:
..i agree with that....apart from that there was nothing "split second" about the whole affair....the way i see this is if we can show just how many elements don't make sense with the intruder version then that can only lead to a cover up story for having shot RS on purpose. ...he's already put his foot in it by not saying that he gave a warning..
Click to expand...

It was in his mind and no one proved otherwise.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 86 more.
Total: 275 (members: 87, guests: 188)

Online statistics

Members online
87
Guests online
188
Total visitors
275
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
608,999
Messages
18,248,398
Members
234,523
Latest member
MN-Girl
Back
Top