Recent content by TipDog

Forgive me for butting in as this is slightly OT (only in that it's not keeping with current line of discussion), but this blogger nailed it for me. He's slightly off some of the details and it's just his opinion, but I couldn't agree more with his assessment...

Do you also believe he is hot tempered and capable of being reckless with a gun when angry?...witness his past history of shooting off guns in anger and recklessly when others were around and could have been injured/killed. Do you also believe he is capable of lying to cover any wrong doings...

Please consider this perspective (and pretending that OP's version is true) - the courageous act that evening would have been finding out exactly where the woman he wanted to protect was located and getting her out of the room to safety, whatever that took. His options were: physically finding...

I don't know, sorry. It came up with mention of OP asking for more rights with respect to his bail requirements.

I've not questioned your credentials (the opposite; I've just accepted them as fact). Nor have I told you you are wrong. But if you are going to identify yourself as an attorney and insist something is true with respect to laws, then you shouldn't take offense to being questioned with respect...

<modsnip> You compared OP to a soldier acting in circumstances that require bravery and possible sacrifice of life. What OP did (in his fantasy version) was not brave in the least (and if he were a soldier, he'd be facing court-martial at the very least). No matter how much you feel...

I'm sure there have been. He was an inspiration to those who don't know him personally (and perhaps even to some who do). But that means nothing now. And where I am in the states, Los Angeles, pretty much anyone I mention this trial to shrugs and says, "isn't that the Olympic runner dude...

Hey, I'm all man too! Don't just judge by a photo. :p (just kidding)

How so, Minor? Seriously, I'd like to hear your thoughts as an attorney. And to be clear, I'm not saying the defense can't meet with witnesses, nor can the accused be at these meetings if allowed. Of course that is necessary I would imagine to any case. What I'm talking about, is the accused...

To some on here it is, simply because they don't believe the state has proven that he knew it was RS on the other side of the door. And from there, the discussion goes in circles.

So, you think none of that is true? 1. Oscar could tamper with witnesses 2. Oscar may have been given special treatment because of his celebrity (as if that's not happened before or won't happen again) 3. It's been reported that in more than just tabloids that he does have a love interest...

Respectfully, no, they do not. Nor does much of the evidence, unless you, like OP, think everyone is lying/mistaken or moving items around in the crime scene in an effort to thwart him. And most importantly, logic is nowhere near him, let alone on his side. Lastly, has anyone heard him...

This is EXACTLY what I've been saying... ...about Oscar Pistorius and his mix and match testimony with major, very significant errors in the narrative. Sorry, but I'm just so perplexed that any witness' testimony could be held under such scrutiny, while OP can just cry and puke, and some...

If, and that's a big IF, any/all of that is true, it just boils my blood. This in particular: "Oscar did go out last Saturday with friends," she said. "It was the first time since the tragic and horrific events of the 14th of February that Oscar went out with friends. He has been...

You mean the lawyers or the accused?