Guest Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/11/oscar-pistorius-not-guilty-murder-reeva-steenkamp What an absolute and utter disgrace. Reminiscent of the OJ Simpson farce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cisse Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 If I were a father of his girlfriend I'd make sure that Pistorius would be found dead by an accident his head in the toilet bowl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AmericanRam Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 Pretty sad verdict but tbh not too surprising too me.I thought George Zimmerman case would happen the way it did also.Pistorius will get his comeuppance one way or the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AmericanRam Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 I do see him being found guilty of manslaughter at least as the article says. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cisse Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/11/oscar-pistorius-not-guilty-murder-reeva-steenkamp What an absolute and utter disgrace. Reminiscent of the OJ Simpson farce. At least with OJ there was a possibility that it could have been done by somebody else. Just hang them high. Both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RamNut Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 He produced a ludicrous explanation. Witnesses who heard a scream are discounted; the prosecution is said to have not proved the case, yet the defence story is accepted without question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mafiabob Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 He produced a ludicrous explanation. Witnesses who heard a scream are discounted; the prosecution is said to have not proved the case, yet the defence story is accepted without question. Also.... Adjourning just before giving the verdict on culpable homicide was disgusting.... All for the benefit of her ego and TV cameras. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pearl Ram Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 I didn't think he had a leg to stand on. Alright, I'm getting it "http://forums.mg-rover.org/images/smilies/getmecoat" alt="getmecoat"> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyinLiverpool Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 guilty of culpable homicide. Not surprising really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfie Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 "Manslaughter" is probably the right result. Very difficult to prove intent on his part - and the prosecution obviously failed to do so Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RamNut Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 "Manslaughter" is probably the right result. Very difficult to prove intent on his part - and the prosecution obviously failed to do so Difficult to prove intent? He shot her. He didn't knock her off her bike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ladyram Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 How longs he got? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dimmu Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 How longs he got? Not sure yet. But not life, maybe 10-15 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfie Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 Difficult to prove intent? He shot her. He didn't knock her off her bike. He never denied shooting her. just that he didn't know it was her - and the judge obviously believed he didn't deliberately try to kill whoever was behind the door. I wasn't in the courtroom and only know the headlines from the media throughout the case but to me, it looks lenient. The judge feels the prosecution didn't convince her of intent - beyond reasonable doubt. As I said before, it's not easy to prove intent, so this is probably the inevitable verdict. Personally I think if you shoot 4 times with a high calibre weapon into a small toilet cubicle, how can intent not be there?. Just hope he gets a long sentence and is unable to profit from any future book/film deals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ovis aries Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 He never denied shooting her. just that he didn't know it was her - and the judge obviously believed he didn't deliberately try to kill whoever was behind the door. I wasn't in the courtroom and only know the headlines from the media throughout the case but to me, it looks lenient. The judge feels the prosecution didn't convince her of intent - beyond reasonable doubt. As I said before, it's not easy to prove intent, so this is probably the inevitable verdict. Personally I think if you shoot 4 times with a high calibre weapon into a small toilet cubicle, how can intent not be there?. Just hope he gets a long sentence and is unable to profit from any future book/film deals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyinLiverpool Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 How many times was she shot? One wonders what the 'intent' might have been if it wasn't to kill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramexpat Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 How many times was she shot? One wonders what the 'intent' might have been if it wasn't to kill. from the Judges statements its not only how many times but also the height of the shots were low and not classed as "warning shots" , those shots were intended to hit someone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ovis aries Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 from the Judges statements its not only how many times but also the height of the shots were low and not classed as "warning shots" , those shots were intended to hit someoneDidn't the defence say they were low because he had not got his legs on ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramexpat Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 Didn't the defence say they were low because he had not got his legs on ? i read they also said the angle of the bullets was not in a upward trajectory, so even if he was on him "stumps" he didnt fire warning shots "Capt. Christiaan Mangena said Pistorius shot at a slightly downward angle into the cubicle where Reeva Steenkamp was" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ovis aries Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 i read they also said the angle of the bullets was not in a upward trajectory, so even if he was on him "stumps" he didnt fire warning shots "Capt. Christiaan Mangena said Pistorius shot at a slightly downward angle into the cubicle where Reeva Steenkamp was" He should NOT have fired any shots.He should have shouted a warning that he had a gun, and had called the cops , not just blasted away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.