Pistorius neighbor 'heard screams, gunshots'

by Ben Reilly Mon Mar 03, 2014 11:59 pm

First topic message reminder :

A neighbour of South African athlete Oscar Pistorius has told a court in Pretoria that she was awoken by a woman's "terrible screams" in the early hours of 14 February 2013.

Mr Pistorius has pleaded not guilty at the start of his trial for the murder of his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp.

He shot dead the 29-year-old model and reality TV star at his home, saying he mistook her for an intruder.

The neighbour, Michelle Burger, said cries for help were followed by shots.

"She screamed terribly and she yelled for help. Then I also heard a man screaming for help. Three times he yelled for help," Ms Burger told the high court in the capital.

She said she called security and then heard four gunshots.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-26418086

by Raggamuffin Fri Mar 07, 2014 11:13 am

Sassy wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:Reeva wasn't his wife, and they had only been together for a few months.

AKA she got together with him when he'd already lost his legs.

Yes I know - he lost his legs as a baby. My point is that she wouldn't necessarily have the same level of commitment as a wife. Anyway, I'm not claiming that she had another man or anything.

by gerber Fri Mar 07, 2014 11:23 am

the defence Advocate is excellent. Running rings round the states witnesses.

His ex girlfriend on oath this am knows and remembers very little apart form the gun being fired through the open sunroof......Can't even remember whether she went back to his house that night....., where the gun was fired.

by Raggamuffin Fri Mar 07, 2014 11:24 am

Just as an aside, Reeva's Twitter account is still there, and some people put horrible remarks on it after her death. Mad

by Guest Fri Mar 07, 2014 2:11 pm

Yep but you women are fickle, fame and money go before love.

by gerber Fri Mar 07, 2014 2:29 pm

Croissant wrote:Yep but you women are fickle, fame and money go before love.

Slander, libel................................. But it does help. ::D::

by Guest Fri Mar 07, 2014 2:39 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
smelly_bandit wrote:

Couldn't have been premeditated murder then because as you've just stated

"You let loose a few shots at a door without knowing what or who you are shooting at??"

Dear me, the point Quill was making is that it does not make sense to wake up living with someone with them not being the first thing on their mind where they are and shooting bullets through a door where noise is heard not knowing if your partner is there.

Have you ever lived with someone and woken up to noises and find them not next to you?

If yes what did you do?

exactly

if you don't know you're partner is in there then you cannot be committing premeditated murder

how difficult is it for you to understand??

by Guest Fri Mar 07, 2014 10:18 pm

smelly_bandit wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

Dear me, the point Quill was making is that it does not make sense to wake up living with someone with them not being the first thing on their mind where they are and shooting bullets through a door where noise is heard not knowing if your partner is there.

Have you ever lived with someone and woken up to noises and find them not next to you?

If yes what did you do?

exactly

if you don't know you're partner is in there then you cannot be committing premeditated murder

how difficult is it for you to understand??

Really, how do you figure that, the whole thing could have been premeditated and made to look like he did not know, but the fact is he did.

Pistorius claimed Steenkamp was in bed and there was an intruder, who he shot four times through the bathroom door — then realised he had made a terrible mistake.

"During the early hours of the morning I brought two fans in from the balcony. I had shortly before spoken to Reeva who was in bed beside me. Unbeknown to me, Reeva must have gone to the toilet in the bathroom at the time I brought in the fans, closed the sliding doors and drew the blinds and the curtains. I heard the bathroom window sliding open, I believed that an intruder or intruders had entered the bathroom through the bathroom window which was not fitted with burglar bars. I approached the bathroom armed with my firearm, so as to defend Reeva and I. At that time I believed Reeva was still in the bed. The discharging of my firearm was precipitated by a noise in the toilet which I, in my fearful state, knowing I was on my stumps, unable to run away or properly defend myself physically believed to be the intruder or intruders coming out of the toilet to attack Reeva and me."

That shows he knew she was there in the house, so again on waking up, did he not check under the covers or realise she was not there?

If that is what he is claiming is true, for all we know she went to the bathroom, he waiting and then shot four times knowing roughly where she was .

Also today, his ex said:

One of Gerrie Nel's most crucial questions for Ms Taylor came when he asked if Oscar Pistorius ever thought there was an intruder in his home when she was there - Ms Taylor described previous such incidents and said he had woken her up.

So again how did he not realise someone was not in bed with him?

Again have you woken up next to someone and then called the Police hearing noises and also not knowing your partner is in bed with you?

by gerber Fri Mar 07, 2014 10:32 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
smelly_bandit wrote:

exactly

if you don't know you're partner is in there then you cannot be committing premeditated murder

how difficult is it for you to understand??

Really, how do you figure that, the whole thing could have been premeditated and made to look like he did not know, but the fact is he did.

Pistorius claimed Steenkamp was in bed and there was an intruder, who he shot four times through the bathroom door — then realised he had made a terrible mistake.

"During the early hours of the morning I brought two fans in from the balcony. I had shortly before spoken to Reeva who was in bed beside me. Unbeknown to me, Reeva must have gone to the toilet in the bathroom at the time I brought in the fans, closed the sliding doors and drew the blinds and the curtains. I heard the bathroom window sliding open, I believed that an intruder or intruders had entered the bathroom through the bathroom window which was not fitted with burglar bars. I approached the bathroom armed with my firearm, so as to defend Reeva and I. At that time I believed Reeva was still in the bed. The discharging of my firearm was precipitated by a noise in the toilet which I, in my fearful state, knowing I was on my stumps, unable to run away or properly defend myself physically believed to be the intruder or intruders coming out of the toilet to attack Reeva and me."

That shows he knew she was there in the house, so again on waking up, did he not check under the covers or realise she was not there?

If that is what he is claiming is true, for all we know she went to the bathroom, he waiting and then shot four times knowing roughly where she was .

Also today, his ex said:

One of Gerrie Nel's most crucial questions for Ms Taylor came when he asked if Oscar Pistorius ever thought there was an intruder in his home when she was there - Ms Taylor described previous such incidents and said he had woken her up.

So again how did he not realise someone was not in bed with him?

Again have you woken up next to someone and then called the Police hearing noises and also not knowing your partner is in bed with you?

Might be me, but those sorts of opinions that are laid out for all to see without having seen all the evidence let alone heard fully from the State nor the defense is very very dangerous and I hope you are never put into that situation,, guilty because of..... without the whole trial running its due course.

Trial by media...................

by Guest Fri Mar 07, 2014 10:39 pm

gerber wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

Really, how do you figure that, the whole thing could have been premeditated and made to look like he did not know, but the fact is he did.

Pistorius claimed Steenkamp was in bed and there was an intruder, who he shot four times through the bathroom door — then realised he had made a terrible mistake.

"During the early hours of the morning I brought two fans in from the balcony. I had shortly before spoken to Reeva who was in bed beside me. Unbeknown to me, Reeva must have gone to the toilet in the bathroom at the time I brought in the fans, closed the sliding doors and drew the blinds and the curtains. I heard the bathroom window sliding open, I believed that an intruder or intruders had entered the bathroom through the bathroom window which was not fitted with burglar bars. I approached the bathroom armed with my firearm, so as to defend Reeva and I. At that time I believed Reeva was still in the bed. The discharging of my firearm was precipitated by a noise in the toilet which I, in my fearful state, knowing I was on my stumps, unable to run away or properly defend myself physically believed to be the intruder or intruders coming out of the toilet to attack Reeva and me."

That shows he knew she was there in the house, so again on waking up, did he not check under the covers or realise she was not there?

If that is what he is claiming is true, for all we know she went to the bathroom, he waiting and then shot four times knowing roughly where she was .

Also today, his ex said:

One of Gerrie Nel's most crucial questions for Ms Taylor came when he asked if Oscar Pistorius ever thought there was an intruder in his home when she was there - Ms Taylor described previous such incidents and said he had woken her up.

So again how did he not realise someone was not in bed with him?

Again have you woken up next to someone and then called the Police hearing noises and also not knowing your partner is in bed with you?

Might be me, but those sorts of opinions that are laid out for all to see without having seen all the evidence let alone heard fully from the State nor the defense is very very dangerous and I hope you are never put into that situation,, guilty because of..... without the whole trial running its due course.

Trial by media...................

Eh, I am giving a view on the case as many do, I will though await the whole evidence being presented, but so far what he states has not held up to scrutiny so far.
If he ends up being innocent so be it and that is the case then there will be strong evidence to show this, my own view I think he is guilty as to me things do not add up, but if I am wrong then fine, but people do discuss such trials Gerber and the reality is a person is dead because of his actions, whether by accident or on purpose

by gerber Fri Mar 07, 2014 10:46 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
gerber wrote:

Might be me, but those sorts of opinions that are laid out for all to see without having seen all the evidence let alone heard fully from the State nor the defense is very very dangerous and I hope you are never put into that situation,, guilty because of..... without the whole trial running its due course.

Trial by media...................

Eh, I am giving a view on the case as many do, I will though await the whole evidence being presented, but so far what he states has not held up to scrutiny so far.
If he ends up being innocent so be it and that is the case then there will be strong evidence to show this, my own view I think he is guilty as to me things do not add up, but if I am wrong then fine, but people do discuss such trials Gerber and the reality is a person is dead because of his actions, whether by accident or on purpose

Hey buddy

he has admitted the shooting....... the final verdict is in the Judge's hands. Thank goodness no jury.............. How it is going so far is a nightmare.

I am with you to a point but so far the State have yet to put up some one credible...... seems a tad choreographed so far

by Guest Sat Mar 08, 2014 12:22 am

PhilDidge wrote:
smelly_bandit wrote:

exactly

if you don't know you're partner is in there then you cannot be committing premeditated murder

how difficult is it for you to understand??

Really, how do you figure that, the whole thing could have been premeditated and made to look like he did not know, but the fact is he did.

Pistorius claimed Steenkamp was in bed and there was an intruder, who he shot four times through the bathroom door — then realised he had made a terrible mistake.

"During the early hours of the morning I brought two fans in from the balcony. I had shortly before spoken to Reeva who was in bed beside me. Unbeknown to me, Reeva must have gone to the toilet in the bathroom at the time I brought in the fans, closed the sliding doors and drew the blinds and the curtains. I heard the bathroom window sliding open, I believed that an intruder or intruders had entered the bathroom through the bathroom window which was not fitted with burglar bars. I approached the bathroom armed with my firearm, so as to defend Reeva and I. At that time I believed Reeva was still in the bed. The discharging of my firearm was precipitated by a noise in the toilet which I, in my fearful state, knowing I was on my stumps, unable to run away or properly defend myself physically believed to be the intruder or intruders coming out of the toilet to attack Reeva and me."

That shows he knew she was there in the house, so again on waking up, did he not check under the covers or realise she was not there?

If that is what he is claiming is true, for all we know she went to the bathroom, he waiting and then shot four times knowing roughly where she was .

Also today, his ex said:

One of Gerrie Nel's most crucial questions for Ms Taylor came when he asked if Oscar Pistorius ever thought there was an intruder in his home when she was there - Ms Taylor described previous such incidents and said he had woken her up.

So again how did he not realise someone was not in bed with him?

Again have you woken up next to someone and then called the Police hearing noises and also not knowing your partner is in bed with you?

How many times have you woken up believing there were intruders in your house??

by Original Quill Sat Mar 08, 2014 4:02 am

smelly_bandit wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Exactly. Nothing this guy says makes sense. You grab a gun out from under her side of the bed, and don't even notice she's missing?? You let loose a few shots at a door without knowing what or who you are shooting at??

This is the same hothead who shot up a restaurant a few days before. Sounds like a Mississippi cracker at a drunken Klan rally.

Couldn't have been premeditated murder then because as you've just stated

"You let loose a few shots at a door without knowing what or who you are shooting at??"

Yeah, if you believe it smelly. Only I don't.

You gotta put the whole picture together. The vision I'm getting is this hotheaded gun nutter got jealous, accused his girlfriend of being unfaithful, she retreated into the bathroom out of fear, and he blew off and shot her. All the rest is the guy's histrionics.

by Guest Sat Mar 08, 2014 8:36 am

smelly_bandit wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

Really, how do you figure that, the whole thing could have been premeditated and made to look like he did not know, but the fact is he did.

Pistorius claimed Steenkamp was in bed and there was an intruder, who he shot four times through the bathroom door — then realised he had made a terrible mistake.

"During the early hours of the morning I brought two fans in from the balcony. I had shortly before spoken to Reeva who was in bed beside me. Unbeknown to me, Reeva must have gone to the toilet in the bathroom at the time I brought in the fans, closed the sliding doors and drew the blinds and the curtains. I heard the bathroom window sliding open, I believed that an intruder or intruders had entered the bathroom through the bathroom window which was not fitted with burglar bars. I approached the bathroom armed with my firearm, so as to defend Reeva and I. At that time I believed Reeva was still in the bed. The discharging of my firearm was precipitated by a noise in the toilet which I, in my fearful state, knowing I was on my stumps, unable to run away or properly defend myself physically believed to be the intruder or intruders coming out of the toilet to attack Reeva and me."

That shows he knew she was there in the house, so again on waking up, did he not check under the covers or realise she was not there?

If that is what he is claiming is true, for all we know she went to the bathroom, he waiting and then shot four times knowing roughly where she was .

Also today, his ex said:

One of Gerrie Nel's most crucial questions for Ms Taylor came when he asked if Oscar Pistorius ever thought there was an intruder in his home when she was there - Ms Taylor described previous such incidents and said he had woken her up.

So again how did he not realise someone was not in bed with him?

Again have you woken up next to someone and then called the Police hearing noises and also not knowing your partner is in bed with you?

How many times have you woken up believing there were intruders in your house??

Interesting keep ignoring my questions and points and hope I will answer yours, very odd.

Only once have I thought that and was 20 years ago and was a time I was living on my own
So again how could he not see her in the bed or even go to check her in the bed, to see if she was okay also, because his previous Girlfriend stated, he had woken up two times before thinking there was intruders and had went to her first and woke her. Again it does not prove he is guilty but does show that his story lacks credibility.

After returning, she was asked by the prosecution if there had been other occasions when Mr Pistorius thought there was an intruder in his house.

She replied that it had happened at least twice. Crucially, she said he always woke her up before taking his gun with him to check.

by Guest Sat Mar 08, 2014 1:39 pm

so you're now an expert on how to behave when there are intruders in your house because 20 years ago you once had an experience where you thought there were intruders in your house.

did the stench of you shitting yourself scare them off??

to be honest i don't really care about your opinion because its never based on reality, its always based on delusions and your imagination, and i don't care about the points you raised or the question you demand i answer

by Guest Sat Mar 08, 2014 1:47 pm

smelly_bandit wrote:so you're now an expert on how to behave when there are intruders in your house because 20 years ago you once had an experience where you thought there were intruders in your house.

did the stench of you shitting yourself scare them off??

to be honest i don't really care about your opinion because its never based on reality, its always based on delusions and your imagination, and i don't care about the points you raised or the question you demand i answer

How to debate the smelly way, ignore all points and questions in the desperate hope/attempt of avoiding answering them.Where did I claim I was an expert on how to behave on claims to noises being heard? Never did, hence why asking you the questions, DOH Nor did I shit myself, being as there was no intruders, I investigated a noise, DOH, showing again how further you try and deflect from your poor points
Never claimed an expertise on this point just some common sense, what I showed you is that and even with evidence from his ex-partner, that living people especially one that is meant to be sharing your bed that night, even more, knowing this same person claims he thought she was still in bed, that many people would take a second to actually check, as he had done previously before.

So you do not care for my opinion but keep replying and even worse avoiding points raised to you.

by Original Quill Sat Mar 08, 2014 6:32 pm

smelly_bandit wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

Dear me, the point Quill was making is that it does not make sense to wake up living with someone with them not being the first thing on their mind where they are and shooting bullets through a door where noise is heard not knowing if your partner is there.

Have you ever lived with someone and woken up to noises and find them not next to you?

If yes what did you do?

exactly

if you don't know you're partner is in there then you cannot be committing premeditated murder

how difficult is it for you to understand??

That's not the 'premeditation' part, smelly. You must sort things through more thoughtfully.

The fact that Pistorius had no concern for the whereabouts of Re'eva when he woke up is only probative that his own account is shaky. If a normal person woke up suddenly, as he claims, and became convinced there was a burglar in the house, his first concern would be the whereabouts of his missing mate. The reason for this is twofold: first and foremost, he want to know that he was not confusing her for the burglar, and shooting her; and second, he would have the innate concern for her protection...was she harmed? He exhibited none of those concerns. Thus...a big ol' FAIL to Oscar on his own theory.

Premeditation comes from the second point: having destroyed Oscar's own version of the story, the alternative theory is that he and Re'eva were having a loud argument, amid which he murdered her. He would have been very much aware that it was Re'eva that he was killing--i.e., it was intentional murder--and thus it was premeditated murder. Fact is, under a theory of "lesser-included," even if the jury found it was not premeditated, but a fit of passion, Oscar would still be guilty of second degree murder.

Once he has admitted he pulled the trigger he's going to be found guilty of something. He has presented a theory--call it the burglar theory--with no evidence in support...no sounds, no muddy footprints, no evidence of forced entry, no shadowy figure stealing away in the night...absolutely nothing. Alternatively, the state has presented evidence that he was reckless, rash and misguided around guns, and in particular, the ex-girlfriend has testified that he did not have a girlish scream, thus implying that what the neighbors heard was a female's frightened scream, and Pistorius then gunning her down in what must have been cold blood.

He's got a tough row to hoe.

by Raggamuffin Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:01 pm

Even if it had been a burglar, would it be right that he shot someone through the door? It's not exactly self-defence is it?

by Original Quill Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:20 pm

Well, most jurisdictions have a home is your castle (or just castle) doctrine, in which you may shoot any intruder inside your home who does not belong there.

However, you may not shoot one who is there by invitation. That's why Pistorius must stick by his belief in the burglar theory. Then the death becomes just a tragic accident that no one could have foreseen.

Essentially, it's a 'state of mind' defense, as he admits the shooting. He's skating a thin line, since his claim is that it was a tragic mistake. Any fact that disrupts that frail line will bring him down.

by Original Quill Mon Mar 10, 2014 5:37 pm

Reuters wrote:Pistorius vomits in court at Steenkamp autopsy details

(Reuters) - Track star Oscar Pistorius, on trial for the murder of his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp, wept and vomited into a bucket in a South African courtroom on Monday after hearing graphic details from her autopsy.

Pathologist Gert Saayman was interrupted several times by the 27-year-old Paralympic and Olympic athlete's sobbing and retching but the defense team argued against an adjournment, saying a break would not improve his state of mind.

Earlier, Judge Thokozile Masipa imposed a broadcast blackout on Saayman's testimony out of respect for Steenkamp's family and to prevent children from accidentally hearing its contents.

"Broadcast would compromise the privacy of the deceased, hurt the interests of the Steenkamps and be against the morals of society," Saayam said when he took the stand to ask for a temporary broadcast blackout of a trial that has so far been shown in its entirety on live television.

Masipa, who has been presiding over the week-long trial, extended the ban to live reporting on Twitter.

Pistorius, nicknamed "Bladerunner" for the special prosthetics he wears in competition, admits he shot 29-year-old Steenkamp, a model and law graduate, but argues that it was a tragic case of mistaken identity and that he thought she was an intruder who had broken in to his luxury Pretoria home.

In his testimony, Saayman confirmed that Steenkamp was hit in the head, arm and hip by three shots fired through the locked door of a toilet cubicle. A fourth round fired by Pistorius missed.

Saayman also disclosed Pistorius was using 'hollow-point' rounds, ammunition designed to disintegrate on impact with tissue to cause maximum damage.

Her right upper arm was shattered, the hip wound could well have been fatal, while that to her head would have incapacitated her immediately, he added. No blood was found in her airways, suggesting she breathed only a few times before dying.

In between bouts of sobbing and retching, Pistorius sat with his head bowed, covering his ears with his hands and a white handkerchief in an attempt to block out Saayman's testimony.

Saayman is the first expert to testify at the trial, which has so far heard several witnesses who reported hearing a woman screaming before a volley of shots in the early hours of February 14 - Valentine's Day - at Pistorius' home.

The killing stunned South Africa and the millions of Pistorius supporters around the world who admired the athlete as a symbol of triumph over physical adversity.

He had his disabled lower legs amputated as a baby but - running on carbon fiber prosthetic "blades" - made it to the semi-final of the 400 meters at the London 2012 Olympics competing against able-bodied sprinters.

If found guilty of murder, he faces at least 25 years behind bars.

by Guest Mon Mar 10, 2014 5:40 pm

What do you think about having one Judge and no jury? Maybe it's better, as she won't be so easily influenced as a jury, but I would have thought a panel of three judges would be more democratic.

by Original Quill Mon Mar 10, 2014 5:57 pm

Exactly. I understand that SA doesn't provide for juries.

As we have seen in cases such as Trayvon Martin and Jordan Davis, there is an inherent problem with juries. The trial becomes as much a show, as an evidentiary hearing.

Although I champion that system when it helps my client, from an objective point of view a jury is not very trustworthy.

by Guest Tue Mar 11, 2014 7:44 pm

Original Quill wrote:
smelly_bandit wrote:

exactly

if you don't know you're partner is in there then you cannot be committing premeditated murder

how difficult is it for you to understand??

That's not the 'premeditation' part, smelly. You must sort things through more thoughtfully.

The fact that Pistorius had no concern for the whereabouts of Re'eva when he woke up is only probative that his own account is shaky. If a normal person woke up suddenly, as he claims, and became convinced there was a burglar in the house, his first concern would be the whereabouts of his missing mate. The reason for this is twofold: first and foremost, he want to know that he was not confusing her for the burglar, and shooting her; and second, he would have the innate concern for her protection...was she harmed? He exhibited none of those concerns. Thus...a big ol' FAIL to Oscar on his own theory.

Premeditation comes from the second point: having destroyed Oscar's own version of the story, the alternative theory is that he and Re'eva were having a loud argument, amid which he murdered her. He would have been very much aware that it was Re'eva that he was killing--i.e., it was intentional murder--and thus it was premeditated murder. Fact is, under a theory of "lesser-included," even if the jury found it was not premeditated, but a fit of passion, Oscar would still be guilty of second degree murder.

Once he has admitted he pulled the trigger he's going to be found guilty of something. He has presented a theory--call it the burglar theory--with no evidence in support...no sounds, no muddy footprints, no evidence of forced entry, no shadowy figure stealing away in the night...absolutely nothing. Alternatively, the state has presented evidence that he was reckless, rash and misguided around guns, and in particular, the ex-girlfriend has testified that he did not have a girlish scream, thus implying that what the neighbors heard was a female's frightened scream, and Pistorius then gunning her down in what must have been cold blood.

He's got a tough row to hoe.

there are many assumptions that disregard other possible scenarios in there

i think the fact that he IS reckless, rash and misguided around guns goes towards his defense on the grounds that he is trigger happy and not over competent,and therefore may not have been thinking clearly if he thought there was an intruder.

maybe he rolled straight into "action" and went with the assumption that Reeva was beside him, perhaps he threw a glance at her sleeping space, and in the darkness thought she was there.

as for her screams? if i was sitting on the bog in the middle of the night and rounds started coming through the door?? well lets just says its a good thing i was sitting on the toilet and id probably shout to

as for evidence of the intruder? well of course there was no intruder but that didn't stop him from believing there was one

there is no denying that he killed her, i however have my doubts about his intentionally murdering her

by Tommy Monk Tue Mar 11, 2014 8:19 pm

I don't believe his intruder story one bit.

by Guest Tue Mar 11, 2014 9:04 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:I don't believe his intruder story one bit.

Oddly enough, the consensus amongst posters here seems to be that his story is implausible, but that he'll be found not guilty anyway.

Was any forensic evidence found which might support his claim regarding an intruder?

by Guest Tue Mar 11, 2014 9:15 pm

Don't think so Lovey. I began by giving him the benefit of the doubt. So far though, the evidence seems to be that he got very angry with a previous girlfriend, didn't like being thwarted and shot something up when he was and the autopsy evidence today showed that he lied about the time they ate. I'm beginning to see a scenerio of a man with a short fuse who grabbed a gun without thinking whenever he was angry, a girlfriend who had locked herself in the loo with her phone (to call for help because she was frightened?) and he wasn't having any of it so grabbed his gun and blasted.

I hope I'm wrong.

by Guest Tue Mar 11, 2014 10:05 pm

Sassy wrote:Don't think so Lovey. I began by giving him the benefit of the doubt. So far though, the evidence seems to be that he got very angry with a previous girlfriend, didn't like being thwarted and shot something up when he was and the autopsy evidence today showed that he lied about the time they ate. I'm beginning to see a scenerio of a man with a short fuse who grabbed a gun without thinking whenever he was angry, a girlfriend who had locked herself in the loo with her phone (to call for help because she was frightened?) and he wasn't having any of it so grabbed his gun and blasted.

I hope I'm wrong.

Well at least you haven't called a racist yet.

I'm sure that will follow

by Guest Tue Mar 11, 2014 10:09 pm

smelly_bandit wrote:
Sassy wrote:Don't think so Lovey. I began by giving him the benefit of the doubt. So far though, the evidence seems to be that he got very angry with a previous girlfriend, didn't like being thwarted and shot something up when he was and the autopsy evidence today showed that he lied about the time they ate. I'm beginning to see a scenerio of a man with a short fuse who grabbed a gun without thinking whenever he was angry, a girlfriend who had locked herself in the loo with her phone (to call for help because she was frightened?) and he wasn't having any of it so grabbed his gun and blasted.

I hope I'm wrong.

Well at least you haven't called a racist yet.

I'm sure that will follow

How very silly, he hardly shot her because she was black did he?

by Guest Tue Mar 11, 2014 11:07 pm

Sassy wrote:
smelly_bandit wrote:

Well at least you haven't called a racist yet.

I'm sure that will follow

How very silly, he hardly shot her because she was black did he?

Well that never stopped you from dishing out the racist award before

by Guest Tue Mar 11, 2014 11:14 pm

smelly_bandit wrote:
Sassy wrote:

How very silly, he hardly shot her because she was black did he?

Well that never stopped you from dishing out the racist award before

://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/:

Oh I'm always going around saying it's racist when there is no colour difference and things are not being done because of race.

://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/:

by Guest Tue Mar 11, 2014 11:18 pm

Sassy wrote:
smelly_bandit wrote:

Well that never stopped you from dishing out the racist award before

://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/:

Oh I'm always going around saying it's racist when there is no colour difference and things are not being done because of race.

://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/:

Correct

You accused quill of racism

by Guest Tue Mar 11, 2014 11:20 pm

smelly_bandit wrote:
Sassy wrote:

://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/:

Oh I'm always going around saying it's racist when there is no colour difference and things are not being done because of race.

://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/:

Correct

You accused quill of racism

Yep, he was being racist about people because they are brown and live east of Europe.

by Original Quill Wed Mar 12, 2014 3:33 am

Sassy wrote:
smelly_bandit wrote:

Correct

You accused quill of racism

Yep, he was being racist about people because they are brown and live east of Europe.

Sassy, you are so stupid. I do not connect skin pigmentation with psychosis. You are the most reckless idiot when it comes to finding racism.

I submit, you have a political agenda with me. I have humiliated you on another front--the one having to do with your pussy whipping Victor, and running roughshod over Speak Free--and now you are bound to say things about me with the scantest evidence.

Sass, it makes you look foolish. Smelly is quite correct in showing you up as the fool. If you will take advice from an experienced advocate, never back a losing hand. If I have bested you, put the whole goddam ghost behind you. Cut your losses. Don't continue to back a loser. That's advice from how I am as successful as I am as a trial attorney.

Your theory about Pistorius is probably correct. (Only I don't think he will be acquitted.) But you take a winner, and couple it with your loser racist argument, and you end up losing. What the fook does that achieve? Loser trumps winner, and you end up on the garbage heap.

Learn to drop the loser association, and gravitate towards winning arguments.

by Guest Wed Mar 12, 2014 7:43 am

Sassy wrote:
smelly_bandit wrote:

Correct

You accused quill of racism

Yep, he was being racist about people because they are brown and live east of Europe.

So your belief is that only Brown people live east of Europe

A racist generalization if ever there was one

Besides sassy, you're a well known liar who fabricates lies about posters you don't like. I'm still waiting for you to post up the evidence you claim you have about a post I made refenece breivik

by Guest Wed Mar 12, 2014 10:51 am

he is of course now being portrayed as a gun nut but in his country it is better safe than sorry, if it were legal to own a gun in this country I certainly would, should he have fired through a door without knowing who was on the other side, no, could anyone who does not have his disability know exactly how vulnerable he felt, no, it will be interesting how it all plays out though.

by Guest Wed Mar 12, 2014 11:01 am

Original Quill wrote:
Sassy wrote:

Yep, he was being racist about people because they are brown and live east of Europe.

Sassy, you are so stupid. I do not connect skin pigmentation with psychosis. You are the most reckless idiot when it comes to finding racism.

I submit, you have a political agenda with me. I have humiliated you on another front--the one having to do with your pussy whipping Victor, and running roughshod over Speak Free--and now you are bound to say things about me with the scantest evidence.

Sass, it makes you look foolish. Smelly is quite correct in showing you up as the fool. If you will take advice from an experienced advocate, never back a losing hand. If I have bested you, put the whole goddam ghost behind you. Cut your losses. Don't continue to back a loser. That's advice from how I am as successful as I am as a trial attorney.

Your theory about Pistorius is probably correct. (Only I don't think he will be acquitted.) But you take a winner, and couple it with your loser racist argument, and you end up losing. What the fook does that achieve? Loser trumps winner, and you end up on the garbage heap.

Learn to drop the loser association, and gravitate towards winning arguments.

Well I needed a laugh this morning and you certainly provided it lol!

Just how do you think you bested anyone with your show of utter ignorance over the situation of the Malaysian radar services and your contempt that you show over and over again for anyone east of Europe unless they are Israeli? Humiliated, don't you know there are so many people on this board not only laughing at you but wondering why they thought you worth time and trouble in the first place.

I wouldn't have you as an advocate under any circumstances, you have shown yourself up so many times.

@ Smelly, as I lived in Malaysia, I know the colour of their skin, and Quill was referring to Malaysians, who are 90% Malay, Chinese or Indian.

Now, back to Oscar, lets see what happens to him today.

by Guest Wed Mar 12, 2014 3:41 pm

Sassy wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Sassy, you are so stupid. I do not connect skin pigmentation with psychosis. You are the most reckless idiot when it comes to finding racism.

I submit, you have a political agenda with me. I have humiliated you on another front--the one having to do with your pussy whipping Victor, and running roughshod over Speak Free--and now you are bound to say things about me with the scantest evidence.

Sass, it makes you look foolish. Smelly is quite correct in showing you up as the fool. If you will take advice from an experienced advocate, never back a losing hand. If I have bested you, put the whole goddam ghost behind you. Cut your losses. Don't continue to back a loser. That's advice from how I am as successful as I am as a trial attorney.

Your theory about Pistorius is probably correct. (Only I don't think he will be acquitted.) But you take a winner, and couple it with your loser racist argument, and you end up losing. What the fook does that achieve? Loser trumps winner, and you end up on the garbage heap.

Learn to drop the loser association, and gravitate towards winning arguments.

Well I needed a laugh this morning and you certainly provided it

Just how do you think you bested anyone with your show of utter ignorance over the situation of the Malaysian radar services and your contempt that you show over and over again for anyone east of Europe unless they are Israeli? Humiliated, don't you know there are so many people on this board not only laughing at you but wondering why they thought you worth time and trouble in the first place.

I wouldn't have you as an advocate under any circumstances, you have shown yourself up so many times.

@ Smelly, as I lived in Malaysia, I know the colour of their skin, and Quill was referring to Malaysians, who are 90% Malay, Chinese or Indian.

Now, back to Oscar, lets see what happens to him today.

course you've lived in Malaysia

is there anywhere in the world you haven't lived??

any topic you're not an expert in??

give me a break, you haven't gone beyond your village boundaries

by Guest Wed Mar 12, 2014 3:48 pm

No, that would be you Smelly, scuttled from S.Africa to here because you couldn't be around them blacks telling you what to do and haven't stuck your nose outside the door (apart from paintballing to make yourself feel macho) ever since.

by Guest Wed Mar 12, 2014 4:27 pm

Sassy wrote:No, that would be you Smelly, scuttled from S.Africa to here because you couldn't be around them blacks telling you what to do and haven't stuck your nose outside the door (apart from paintballing to make yourself feel macho) ever since.

not very intelligent are you??

how could i have not left the boundaries of my village if Ive lived in two country half way across the world from each other??

sassy, we all know you're a butch lesbian dyke who hates white men, but do try to keep your emotional baggage train in check

by Guest Wed Mar 12, 2014 4:59 pm

Oh bless you Smelly, that will be why I'm getting married again later this year to an ex Sergeant Major in the Black Watch. lol!

PS you daft sod, you mentioned village boundaries, I didn't LOL

by Guest Wed Mar 12, 2014 5:03 pm

Is it just me, or does anyone else find that defence counsel's voice and attitude really irritating? Faced with clear facts, he thinks if he can just keep badgering and asking the same question over and over and over, the witnesses will cave in and get confused and change their answers. Not having much luck is he? Today's performance over the door was pure circus.

by gerber Wed Mar 12, 2014 5:05 pm

Haven't seen any of the court today.............. How has it gone ?

Upto of yesterday I think defence has done a good job on the anti Oscar crew........

Just glad they are not my friends..................

by Guest Wed Mar 12, 2014 5:06 pm

Been reading about it Tess but not watching.

by Guest Wed Mar 12, 2014 5:45 pm

Sassy wrote:Oh bless you Smelly, that will be why I'm getting married again later this year to an ex Sergeant Major in the Black Watch.

PS you daft sod, you mentioned village boundaries, I didn't LOL

ooooooooo the black watch

yeah i was going to join them but then i heard about the marines and decided if im going to do it i may as well do it right

by gerber Wed Mar 12, 2014 5:50 pm

smelly_bandit wrote:
Sassy wrote:Oh bless you Smelly, that will be why I'm getting married again later this year to an ex Sergeant Major in the Black Watch.

PS you daft sod, you mentioned village boundaries, I didn't LOL

ooooooooo the black watch

yeah i was going to join them but then i heard about the marines and decided if im going to do it i may as well do it right

Bet you would have looked amazing in the skirt

by Original Quill Wed Mar 12, 2014 6:20 pm

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:he is of course now being portrayed as a gun nut but in his country it is better safe than sorry, if it were legal to own a gun in this country I certainly would, should he have fired through a door without knowing who was on the other side, no, could anyone who does not have his disability know exactly how vulnerable he felt, no, it will be interesting how it all plays out though.

I have no problem with his gun ownership, if it is legal in SA, Gig. But just because it is legal to own a gun does not give you a license to use it to kill people. After all, when you get a license to drive a car, it is not a license to run people down.

He shot and killed a young woman. That is admitted. The only question now is, was it an excused homicide?

State of Mind Defense. Despite the tenets of self-defense and the castle doctrine being present, this is really a state-of-mind defense. Pistorius admits he shot and killed Re'eva, but he claims it was a tragic mistake. Pistorius claims his state-of-mind was that he was confronting a dangerous intruder...he musters self-defense and the castle doctrine to support his claim that he otherwise had a justification for shooting and killing in his own home. So the bottom-line is, will the trier-of-fact believe he had the alleged state-of-mind.

State's Theory. The state has an alternative theory: that he was a hot-tempered abuser of women--or, a woman--and that he lost it and intentionally killed Re'eva. That is the tree on which the evidentiary trimmings are hung. Witnesses heard a man and a woman arguing in his home, and a shot was fired, after which there was no more woman's voice. There are also witnesses that he was in the habit of being reckless and imprudent with his firearms. The strong inference of the state's evidence is that amid the argument he took his firearm and shot Re'eva.

Question of Degree. He is charged with first-degree murder (malice aforethought) on the theory that he had enough time to preconceive his act before he acted. But, because his state-of-mind might have been impassioned anger (as opposed to malice aforethought), the possibility exists that the court could find him guilty of a lessor charge...perhaps 2nd-degree or manslaughter. Thus a secondary contest exist--also involving state-of-mind--over whether he had the requisite malice for 1st-degree, and if not, what charge should he be found guilty of.

Defense Aims. His defense team probably grants that he will be convicted--though they are not conceding the matter for purposes of the court--and their real efforts are in saving him from the more severe conviction.

by Guest Wed Mar 12, 2014 10:07 pm

smelly_bandit wrote:
Sassy wrote:Oh bless you Smelly, that will be why I'm getting married again later this year to an ex Sergeant Major in the Black Watch.

PS you daft sod, you mentioned village boundaries, I didn't LOL

ooooooooo the black watch

yeah i was going to join them but then i heard about the marines and decided if im going to do it i may as well do it right

Did you?

As you know I can't post pictures, but the link is to a picture of the Marine's that gave themselves up to the Iranians...

So which one of the Royal Marine's is you then?

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2007/04/05/iran3.jpg

by Guest Wed Mar 12, 2014 10:52 pm

Sassy wrote:
smelly_bandit wrote:

ooooooooo the black watch

yeah i was going to join them but then i heard about the marines and decided if im going to do it i may as well do it right

Did you?

As you know I can't post pictures, but the link is to a picture of the Marine's that gave themselves up to the Iranians...

So which one of the Royal Marine's is you then?

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2007/04/05/iran3.jpg

I'm the one who didn't join the crap hat black watch

Anyway you're boring me now. I suggest you get back to ranting about the racists in your cupboard and under your bed and in your shadow

by Guest Wed Mar 12, 2014 10:56 pm

No Smelly, you're the one down the paintball range lol!

The blokes in the Black Watch would eat you alive and spit the bones out Twisted Evil

by Guest Wed Mar 12, 2014 11:01 pm

Sassy wrote:

No Smelly, you're the one down the paintball range

The blokes in the Black Watch would eat you alive and spit the bones out

Then why are the marines considered to be britains shock troops and the black watch just another infantry regiment desperately trying to avoid being cut??

by Guest Wed Mar 12, 2014 11:06 pm

Because the marines are cannon fodder, dredged from anywhere. You don't have to be bright, you just have to be ready to follow orders no matter what those orders are. Brains not required. The Black Watch have an ideology, a history, something to be proud about.

Now, the SAS, which a friend of ours was in, they need brains.

What would you know anyway, I saw the pictures of you and the paintball gun!!!! Twisted Evil

PS http://p8ntballer-forums.com/threads/leaving-sale-look.84213/page-4

4th Ad down - smelly bandit-marker stand

Oh, and http://p8ntballer-forums.com/threads/68-45-dye-throttle-plus-some-tank-covers.146206/#post-1304786

Member Smelly_Bandit

2014-03-12 Twisted Evil

by Sponsored content