Wow: Oscar P's sobbing was so good the judge stopped the proceedings: "My compassion as a human being does not allow me to

What the judge said was pretty straightforward.

He was telling him to pull himself together because it's difficult to pay much attention to what's going on around you while he's bawling his eyes out.

trollism wrote:

What the judge said was pretty straightforward.

He was telling him to pull himself together because it's difficult to pay much attention to what's going on around you while he's bawling his eyes out.

Oh ok.

I must admit I'm stunned by the proceedings. With all the leaks and everything I was thinking there was going to be no way there would be a good defense offered. Boy was I wrong.

For example, the cricket bat leak yesterday seemed to be so damning and now it is actually being used as part of the defense.

How are they explaining the blood on the bat?

Are they going to tell us that Oscar was a big fan of full contact, no holds barred games of cricket on the weekend.

I knew all the people rushing to convict Oscar were going to look like idiots when the facts came to light. The story makes sense and is entirely plausi ble. The prosecution is reaching with this premeditation charge.

JiJoJo wrote:

I knew all the people rushing to convict Oscar were going to look like idiots when the facts came to light. The story makes sense and is entirely plausible. The prosecution is reaching with this premeditation charge.

You 'knew?'

I think you are rushing to free him just as much as they anyone might be rushing to convict.

How can anyone except for maybe Oscar or the people he called right after know for sure right now?

Exactly, no one 'knows' at this point. The evidence SURELY points to Oscar being guilty, but even that is not certain. To say that you 'know' he is innocent is simply asinine.

In South Africa, it is still murder to shoot and kill a burglar who is not threatening your life. South Africa does not allow homeowners the right to execute people who are committing property crimes.

I think the police are going to be able to show that Oscar was on his blades when he shot through ballistics of how the bullets went through the door.

In South Africa, domestic abuse is a big problem. South African men like to think that they are uber male, super tough guys who are free to slap around their women if they get out of line.

Oscar's vulnerability was that he could not slap around Reeva because she could easily push him over with his prosthetic legs giving him poor balance. So, he needed a gun to get the job done.

So--- the story is he went out the the balcony on stumps, heard a noise in the bathroom, YELLED for person to get out, and for Reeva to call the Police. Then, he retrieved the handgun from under the bed and started shooting through the bathroom door? Reeva said nothing in the bathroom? Didn't notice that she was not on the phone, or in the bed and just starting blasting shots into the bathroom door? Absurd!

Precious Roy wrote:

In South Africa, it is still murder to shoot and kill a burglar who is not threatening your life. South Africa does not allow homeowners the right to execute people who are committing property crimes.

I was wondering if voluntary manslaughter was an acceptable charge in South Africa, as I would agree that premeditation could be a stretch, even if it was steroid induced. If this case was done in the USA, I could see voluntary manslaughter sticking. But it is a fine line between this charge and murder from my research. Any lawyers on the board?

"Voluntary manslaughter is the killing of a human being in which the offender had no prior intent to kill and acted during "the heat of passion," under circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to become emotionally or mentally disturbed." - wikipedia

You don't say.

His story is probably going to be something along the lines of "a burglar broke in, my girlfriend saw him, he hit her with my cricket bat, I heard the noise and fired". I guess it's not an impossibility, though if you were a burglar you'd probably have better methods than a homeowner's cricket bat.

I'm pretty sure that the police quickly worked out what really happened soon after they arrived.

Compassion statement by the judge is unbelievable

Read this for more BS coming from him:

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/news/pistorius-case-oscar-pistorius-affidavit-full-133133080.html

Honestly every line sounds like a lie to me

If a normal person did do something like this by accident they would want to kill themselves not do the minimum time possible

That's a good story except the reports are that he shot her once in the bedroom and that there was blood splatter all over the place.

Ballistics will easily show the height (or angle) of the shots through the bathroom door to show whether or not he had is "blades" on.

Even 'if' this chain events is true, there's still little or no excuse for blindly shooting at someone through a door, even if they have broken into your house. Assuming it had been someone else in there and he'd shot them dead (which is presumably what he thought he was doing at the time), he'd still be looking at extremely serious charges. He was obviously never physically or verbally threatened by the 'intruder' as they didn't exist. Absolutely no excuse for what he did.

Breaking into people's houses is obviously worthy of punishment but not being executed on the spot by some numbskull who thinks he's above the law

So, how does his defense explain the bloodied cricket bat? What am I missing lol

Can someone explain how the cricket bat thing is being used in the defense now?

is it a good defense? not sure that I see this as good:

from the words of Oscar:

he goes to the balcony to get a fan on stumps (presumably w/o gun)

has to go back to the bedroom to get gun from under bed

then calls out and then fires 4 shots to protect himself and Reeva

from the words of his lawyer: she locked herself in the bathroom

So, earlier it is reported Oscar either did not know or forgot she was there and mistook her for an intruder. She got there at 6pm and they went to sleep at 10pm

this is what doesn't makes sense to me

1. is it likely that a woman spending the night locks herself in the bathroom

2. when reaching under the bed for a gun to protect one's loved one, does one not either look at the bed to see that loved one is ok or alert that loved one prior to firing shots

3.OP is supposed to be proficient with firearms and presumably some sense of safety in their use: so did he know his target and what was beyond his target? in other words before he shot did he identify his target as an actual threat vs. perceived and what was beyond his target if he missed or the bullet traveled through

4. what intruder sneaks into a house through a second or third story window, and then locks the door

5. what was the noise complaint from neighbors at 1:30 am about?

6. shots fired at 3:20am neighbors call police, OP calls his dad

isn't it still premeditated murder to use deadly force even if you are mistaken about identity? I mean it is sad that OP made the mistake, if he did, but legally that doesn't change anything as far as I can tell. Does it??

having said all this, I probably am coming to this with a lot of skepticism as to OP's story, and I would sincerely be interested why you think it is a good defense

the fact that the cops were there earlier in the night due to a domestic dispute so loud that the neighbors called the cops is damning and will blow up any of these far-fetched defense explanations. toss in the fact that the cops had been there multiple times in the past few months and his defense is toast.