Discussion Thread #61 ~ the appeal~

[aftermath]

....this came from your friend Mr Turner ....."Well we know that in SA one shot is regarded as acceptable in these circumstances as it's regarded as someone acting in panic it seems from other cases. And if one shot indicates panic then 4 shots might just indicate more panic". End of quote...... I find that illogical, without substance and bordering on stupidity......

That post you have quoted says nothing about it being okay for someone to shoot their hiding girlfriend.

 

[Colin de France]

You are wrong. I have no interest in making anyone angry. I don't agree with you, but that's no reason to get angry. You don't agree with me, but I am not going to get angry about it. Neither would I assume that your intention in expressing your opinions is to provoke anger.

....no no no, don't get me wrong, i'm not angry at all, in fact you make me laugh......you're wasting your time really......i would like to see from you your own explanation instead of possibles and maybe's and always following Mr T......

 

[Colin de France]

That post you have quoted says nothing about it being okay for someone to shoot their hiding girlfriend.

...are you joking again...he said that in the case of panic ("regarded as acceptable in these circumstances") it's ok to shoot, he then goes on to say in the case of more panic then it's ok to carry on shooting.......is this real i ask myself ......

 

[aftermath]

...are you joking again...he said that in the case of panic ("acceptable in these circumstances") it's ok to shoot, he then goes on to say in the case of more panic then it's ok to carry on shooting.......is this real i ask myself ...

What it definitely doesn't say though, is that it is acceptable for someone to shoot their hiding girlfriend

 

[cottonweaver]

No you didn't misread it- you read it perfectly. I have followed much of this forum and its many threads since around the time of the bail hearing, when posters like Carol70 (think that was her username - she lived in SA) were posting. Obviously haven't read all posts on here, but those I have haven't expressed a view that it is okay for anyone to shoot their hiding girlfriend.

Neither have I seen such a view expressed on other forum sites.

BIB Now IF I thought that was true why not post over last almost 2 years and wait til now-all the most interesting debate took place during that time when a bunch of people had not made up their minds , were processing and debating as it happened. ( I say that as You said you were motivated to be on WS for "interesting discussion", see your post on the previous page.)

Obviously I am bearing in mind the comment from Colin earlier re Carol70.
Yes its a real pity one can no longer go back to one's own posts from the very beginning. It's difficult to track new accounts and user names obviously too.

Naturally I'm continuing down the reasonable and the plausible line because it's always helpful to reiterate that ........ my BS detector is pretty good.........remember what is "reasonable" for the average person in the street and a trained gun user are somewhat different in majority legal opinion.

 

[Colin de France]

What it definitely doesn't say though, is that it is acceptable for someone to shoot their hiding girlfriend

......i must admit though he didn't say it's ok to go and shoot your girlfriend even for Mr T that would be going just a little too far ........! Better to have a reason, don't you think .......

 

[aftermath]

....no no no, don't get me wrong, i'm not angry at all, in fact you make me laugh......you're wasting your time really......i would like to see from you your own explanation instead of possibles and maybe's and always following Mr T......

Glad you're not angry because, as I said, I have no interest in making people angry. Not sure what you mean by 'wasting time' but never mind.

 

[aftermath]

......i must admit though he didn't say it's ok to go and shoot your girlfriend even for Mr T that would be going just a little too far ........! Better to have a reason, don't you think .......

So we agree? The post you quoted is not saying it is acceptable for someone to shoot their hiding girlfriend.

 

[Colin de France]

Glad you're not angry because, as I said, I have no interest in making people angry. Not sure what you mean by 'wasting time' but never mind.

....good...so what is your position then, what do you think happened, you haven't told us yet........

 

[aftermath]

....good...so what is your position then, what do you think happened, you haven't told us yet........

I think that the state did not prove DD or DE beyond reasonable doubt. I believe that Pistorius's version is possible. I believe the judge made the right call.

 

[Colin de France]

So we agree? The post you quoted is not saying it is acceptable for someone to shoot their hiding girlfriend.

.....we know that it was his girlfriend but according to Pistorius at the time, he didn't......Mr T is saying it's ok to carry on shooting if the panic continues.....rather subjective that ....

 

[Colin de France]

I think that the state did not prove DD or DE beyond reasonable doubt. I believe that Pistorius's version is possible. I believe the judge made the right call.

....again....all is possible....but you haven't backed yourself up with an explanation as to how you think it all happenend........

 

[aftermath]

.....we know that it was his girlfriend but according to Pistorius at the time he didn't......Mr T is saying it's ok to carry on shooting if the panic continues.....rather subjective that ....

That has nothing to do with posting that it is okay for anyone to shoot their hiding girlfriend. It's an entirely different line of discussion.

 

[aftermath]

....again....all is possible....but you haven't backed yourself up with an explanation as to how you think it all happenend........

There are a number of different ways it could have happened. You seem critical of my maybe's and possiblies, but that is how I see it- lots of possibilities. On balance, since I think pistorius's version is reasonably possible, I also think the judge was right.

 

[Colin de France]

That has nothing to do with posting that it is okay for anyone to shoot their hiding girlfriend. It's an entirely different line of discussion.

....ok....... so you need to split hairs........i will try to be as simple as possible (that word)....the way i read your friend Mr Turners post is as follows ...depending on the situation IE panic it's ok to shoot through a door at a human being and if the panic continues then it's ok to carry on shooting....the fact that it turned out to be his girlfriend is relative in as much as a "girfreind" happens to be a human being.....satisfied...

 

[Colin de France]

There are a number of different ways it could have happened. You seem critical of my maybe's and possiblies, but that is how I see it- lots of possibilities. On balance, since I think pistorius's version is reasonably possible, I also think the judge was right.

...with all these possibles it's possible that Pistorius is possibly guilty of muder and that the judge is possibly wrong .....

 

[aftermath]

....ok....... so you need to split hairs........i will try to be as simple as possible....the way i read your friend Mr Turners post is as follows ...depending on the situation IE panic it's ok to shoot through a door at a human being and if the panic continues then it's ok to carry on shooting....the fact that it turned out to be his girlfriend is relative in as much as a "girfreind" happens to be a human being.....satisfied...

You may feel I am splitting hairs, I feel you were being disingenuous using Turner's post in that way. His/her post did not express a view that it is okay for anyone to shoot their hiding girlfriend.
Whether or not it may ever be seen as acceptable to shoot an intruder in panic, is an entirely different question.

 

[aftermath]

...with all these possibles it's possible that Pistorius is possibly guilty of muder and that the judge is possibly wrong .....

Of course!

 

[aftermath]

....actually there is worse than that......i think on here practically all if not all the posters i've seen are honest and sincere and are here for a genuine discussion.........except three....i don't personally mind pro-Pistorian supporters as long as they aren't internet travellers moving from one forum to another on block with the sole intention of disruption, i don't think that is in the spirit of things, hopefully i'm wrong......and as they say...... "that's all".....

Who are the three you don't think are up for honest genuine discussion? What makes you question their honesty/ integrity? Why does it bother you if posters on one forum begin posting on another one? And what makes you fear that these three posters have the sole intention of disrupting?

 

[lithgow1]

It's not necessarily a contradiction. If someone believes there is an intruder in the house, it's not too difficult to accept that prior to shouting a warning to the intruder to get out of the house, (to prompt the intruder into hopefully leaving as someone is clearly alert to their presence), a homeowner might quietly instruct a loved one to get down/call the police.

Actually, if he cared so much about Reeva why didn`t he tell her to get the hell out of there first and then call the police. She could have been down the stairs, out the door and onto the police in minutes. The way he went about things seems to have put her in more potential danger than if he told her to get out of the house while he dealt with the intruder wouldn`t you think.