![]() |
Re: Pistorius. Guilty or not?
From a legal perspective I always find the way a proscutor can attack a defendant and put words into their mouths an interesting one so I was actually quite impressed with the way P 'waspishly' answered one of the prosecutor's questions, mentioning how his story had stayed the same whilst the state's had changed. My view is that technically a proescutor should only be able to talk about facts and or use these facts to establish perhaps a motive - but no, as we know, a prosecutor can essentially and quite literally fabricate (because noone actually knows) a colourful allegation or scenario to provide a court reaction just to prove a point, relying on emotion rather than facts.
One minor detail interested me today when I finally read a account of the trial : that P was so cavalier with weapons he once actually discharged one in a restaurant. Anyone who has experince with weapons but nonetheless does this is quite capable of doing it again - in fact he even claims to have opened fire when startled...if I was his defence lawyer I would be underlining the fact my client was basically highly incompetent and an absolute nervous wreck with handling weapons...not every person experienced with weapons is a good handler! |
Re: Pistorius. Guilty or not?
Originally Posted by BadgeIsBack
(Post 11217497)
From a legal perspective I always find the way a proscutor can attack a defendant and put words into their mouths an interesting one so I was actually quite impressed with the way P 'waspishly' answered one of the prosecutor's questions, mentioning how his story had stayed the same whilst the state's had changed. My view is that technically a proescutor should only be able to talk about facts and or use these facts to establish perhaps a motive - but no, as we know, a prosecutor can essentially and quite literally fabricate (because noone actually knows) a colourful allegation or scenario to provide a court reaction just to prove a point, relying on emotion rather than facts.
One minor detail interested me today when I finally read a account of the trial : that P was so cavalier with weapons he once actually discharged one in a restaurant. Anyone who has experince with weapons but nonetheless does this is quite capable of doing it again - in fact he even claims to have opened fire when startled...if I was his defence lawyer I would be underlining the fact my client was basically highly incompetent and an absolute nervous wreck with handling weapons...not every person experienced with weapons is a good handler! 1. A motive 2. An admission Without these 2, all he has is the ability to mentally disintegrate OP and in the process hoping for an extraction of 1 & 2. |
Re: Pistorius. Guilty or not?
Originally Posted by Beoz
(Post 11212518)
So possessing a firearm and intending on using it as self protection is a perfectly reasonable argument in SA, whilst not so in the UK and Oz?
Remember that farmer that shot that burglar in the UK many years ago? There was uproar if I remember correctly. Probably best.
Originally Posted by Beoz
(Post 11212877)
Maybe she was taking a dump. Even I shut the ensuite door for that. ...... Sometimes.
|
Re: Pistorius. Guilty or not?
Originally Posted by cresta57
(Post 11217574)
I get up & walk to the other end of the house to use the bathroom in the night, the very idea of taking a dump in the same room you sleep in is beyond weird. I've not fathomed the Australian thinking on open plan bedroom/en-suites yet.
Luckily I was staying there alone. |
Re: Pistorius. Guilty or not?
Originally Posted by Beoz
(Post 11217589)
I stayed in a very nice, boutique, 5 star hotel in Jakarta last year. The whole bedroom, office, bathroom, the works was all open plan. There wasn't a single door in the whole place once you passed the front door.
Luckily I was staying there alone. |
Re: Pistorius. Guilty or not?
Originally Posted by moneypenny20
(Post 11217619)
That's just wrong. So wrong.
|
Re: Pistorius. Guilty or not?
Originally Posted by moneypenny20
(Post 11217619)
That's just wrong. So wrong.
|
Re: Pistorius. Guilty or not?
Originally Posted by Beoz
(Post 11217553)
This prosecutor has an amazing reputation, but at this point he has been unable to demonstrate 2 things.
1. A motive 2. An admission Without these 2, all he has is the ability to mentally disintegrate OP and in the process hoping for an extraction of 1 & 2. |
Re: Pistorius. Guilty or not?
Originally Posted by Beoz
(Post 11217553)
This prosecutor has an amazing reputation, but at this point he has been unable to demonstrate 2 things.
1. A motive 2. An admission Without these 2, all he has is the ability to mentally disintegrate OP and in the process hoping for an extraction of 1 & 2. |
Re: Pistorius. Guilty or not?
Originally Posted by Bermudashorts
(Post 11217624)
Does he really need to prove a motive? If so, does every naturally violent person get away with their acts of violence because there is no specific motive, other than they cannot control their temper.
The prosecution at this stage is like a leaky boat. Its all speculation and nothing is concrete. |
Re: Pistorius. Guilty or not?
Originally Posted by Dorothy
(Post 11217627)
As I have said before, the prosecutor does not have to prove motive. He only needs to prove that Oscar Pistorius shot Reeva Steenkamp with the intention to do harm. He also doesn't need an admission of anything. He only has to prove to the judge that OP shot her with the intention of doing serious physical harm to whoever was behind that door.
I wonder what Nel has up his sleeve. |
Re: Pistorius. Guilty or not?
Originally Posted by Beoz
(Post 11217638)
...... and at this point proving that beyond reasonable doubt is not happening.
I wonder what Nel has up his sleeve. |
Re: Pistorius. Guilty or not?
Originally Posted by Beoz
(Post 11217637)
The prosecution at this stage is like a leaky boat. Its all speculation and nothing is concrete.
Originally Posted by Beoz
(Post 11217638)
...... and at this point proving that beyond
I personally think Nel is doing a fine job of showing the holes in OP's story. |
Re: Pistorius. Guilty or not?
Originally Posted by Dorothy
(Post 11217722)
Well, nothing concrete except the fact that OP doesn't dispute he shot her 4 times.
I personally think Nel is doing a fine job of showing the holes in OP's story. |
Re: Pistorius. Guilty or not?
Originally Posted by moneypenny20
(Post 11217725)
All four of them.
|
| All times are GMT -12. The time now is 7:48 am. |
Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.