- 9,058
- Murica
- BasedAckbar
So I wonder what's going to happen to tink tink. He obviously will plead innocent, but shooting through a door? Come on bro, even Dick Cheney would shake his head.
"Blade Runner" Oscar Pistorius shoots his girlfriend
- Thread starter DQuaN
- 277 comments
- 18,492 views
- 11,639
- Intercourse, PA
- Carbonox
Typically killers do get that kind of treatment in da interwebz. It happens, get over it.
- 3,033
Now his agent has cancelled all future races, like should that not go without saying? 
He's in a jail cell indefinitely. And NIKE and Oakley are still standing by him. Fools.
Even if he got off (I dont see it happening but there's a slight possibility based on some recent cases like Casey Anthony), he will commit some other crime or threaten somebody and end up in prison for something else in my opinion based on some of his past actions like calling that soccer player and telling the player that "I'm gonna cut his legs off," or something to that extent.
He's in a jail cell indefinitely. And NIKE and Oakley are still standing by him. Fools. Even if he got off (I dont see it happening but there's a slight possibility based on some recent cases like Casey Anthony), he will commit some other crime or threaten somebody and end up in prison for something else in my opinion based on some of his past actions like calling that soccer player and telling the player that "I'm gonna cut his legs off," or something to that extent.
- 29,366
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
Now his agent has cancelled all future races, like should that not go without saying?
It might also be because police have apparently found steroids at Pistorius's home... although the mandatory life sentence for murder is likely also a factor!
Steroid abuse might also account for the reports of his increasingly erratic behaviour - certainly as plausible as my friend's theory that Pistorius was completely drunk that night. Or atleast I think that's what he meant...
- 7,551
- London
- MattyTheDog
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
I'm guessing there will be a whole avalanche of secrets revealed before this one is over.
- 9,058
- Murica
- BasedAckbar
- 19,013
- Jersey V.1.0
- axletramp
So it would seem. 
The press are going to have a field day with this - beautiful model/celeb shot, high profile sports personality arrested, steriods, previous incidents, dodgy tweets and now a (cricket) bat with blood on it. Whatever happens now and whatever the truth is about that night, the London Paralympics are pretty much the last he's going to see.
The press are going to have a field day with this - beautiful model/celeb shot, high profile sports personality arrested, steriods, previous incidents, dodgy tweets and now a (cricket) bat with blood on it. Whatever happens now and whatever the truth is about that night, the London Paralympics are pretty much the last he's going to see.
- 24,127
- Scarfolk
- Grim10
- Are you kidding?
Didn't he once label someone who beat him as a 'cheater'?
- 87,558
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Yes. The guy had different blades and was thus cheating.
I've been saying for years that I can't stand the guy - and I've even made some comments about his attitude being somewhat... typical of the chemically enhanced. The IOC aren't the cleanest organisation on Earth, but his crusade to be permitted to run seemed to be nothing to do with his disability and all to do with the spotlight.
Of course I'm not right yet and he repeatedly shown himself to be clear of allegations like that. You know, like Lance Armstrong was until 6 months ago.
I've been saying for years that I can't stand the guy - and I've even made some comments about his attitude being somewhat... typical of the chemically enhanced. The IOC aren't the cleanest organisation on Earth, but his crusade to be permitted to run seemed to be nothing to do with his disability and all to do with the spotlight.
Of course I'm not right yet and he repeatedly shown himself to be clear of allegations like that. You know, like Lance Armstrong was until 6 months ago.
- 29,366
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
!!!
- 3,679
- Warwick Uni
- lbsf1 GTP_lbsf1
- obsmu (my brothers acount)
Sounds like the logic of if you can't beat them join them.
I really hope that the incident was an accidental/non pre planned killing, while I have never been a fan of the guy (like famine) it would be horrible if it turned out that he murdered her brutally (cricket bat??). However the evidence seems to be stacking up against him.
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
I don't recall them getting any serious negative publicity out of that - especially considering that they abandoned Armstrong once everything came to light. Perhaps they just believe in the presumption of innocence until guilt is proven. After all, Armstrong was good for their brand right up until the moment he was proven to be a cheater. To the board of directors of those companies, it probably made more sense to hold onto Amrstrong and let him go once he was proven guilty than it did to let go of him and try to get him back if he was proven innocent.
I'm surprised no-one has made a feature film out of OJ Simpson's case. Although I do know that the circumstance surrounding If I Did It were adapted into mainstream media. I think there was an episode of "Law & Order: Special Victims Unit" that took inspiration from it.
- 5,379
- Yokohama
- F1fan1
I'm not so sure about SVU, but there was an episode of the regular Law and Order show that was inspired by it.
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
Well, between "Law & Order", "Special Victims Unit", "Criminal Intent" and the half-a-dozen failed spin-offs they tried to launch, there's got to be well over a thousand episodes of the show in total. Since I've only seen a fraction of that number, it's possible - even probable - that I'm getting series mixed up.
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
The prosecutors have outlined their case against Pistorius, claiming that:
1) He fired four shots; the first hit Reeva Steenkamp in the leg and she fled. Pistorius then fired three more shots through the bathroom door.
2) They also claim that he put on his prosthetic legs before walked some seven metres to bathroom before firing. It is unclear whether they believe he put on his legs before or after firing the first shot (wording seems to imply the latter).
3) Pistorius allegedly told his sister that he had mistaken Steenkamp for an intruder. It would seem he told her this after killing Steenkamp, but before the police arrived.
1) He fired four shots; the first hit Reeva Steenkamp in the leg and she fled. Pistorius then fired three more shots through the bathroom door.
2) They also claim that he put on his prosthetic legs before walked some seven metres to bathroom before firing. It is unclear whether they believe he put on his legs before or after firing the first shot (wording seems to imply the latter).
3) Pistorius allegedly told his sister that he had mistaken Steenkamp for an intruder. It would seem he told her this after killing Steenkamp, but before the police arrived.
- 19,013
- Jersey V.1.0
- axletramp
It shows that he had time to put them on and therefore infer that this was not a snap decision to shoot an intruder. If someone had broken-in, is it conceivable that he would have had time to find and then put his legs on (20-30 seconds?) and still not realise it was his girlfriend? For example, if you were in bed naked would you have time to put clothes on if you knew there was an intruder in your house or would you go straight for the gun? There is an element of doubt there.
arora
(Banned)
- 4,098
I see the point, it's hard for me to say as I don't need to put my legs on. You are right however if I was butt naked I would stay that way.
Pure speculation, if one of us found an intruder and shot at them once, they hid in the house, we knew where they hid, call the cops? You have some time at that point, guard the bathroom? I don't know.
Based on all I've read, which is very little, it sounds he was in the wrong.(legs or not)
Pure speculation, if one of us found an intruder and shot at them once, they hid in the house, we knew where they hid, call the cops? You have some time at that point, guard the bathroom? I don't know.
Based on all I've read, which is very little, it sounds he was in the wrong.(legs or not)
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
It depends.
If it were genuinely an intruder, one could make the case that Pistorius injured the intruder with his first shot. The intruder fled, giving Pistorius time to put his legs on; once he had done so, he went to make sure the intruder was gone. believing the intruder to be armed and cornered in the bathroom, he then fired three more times through the door, perhaps because he was unwilling to take the chance of opening the door and potentially exposing himself to a weapon.
However, the case doesn't simply exist in isolation in that. There is bound to be additional evidence to the case - at the very least, the prosecution would need to prove that Pistorius knew Steenkamp was in the house at the time and that she did not simply make a surprise visit if they want to make a charge of premeditated murder stick.
If it were genuinely an intruder, one could make the case that Pistorius injured the intruder with his first shot. The intruder fled, giving Pistorius time to put his legs on; once he had done so, he went to make sure the intruder was gone. believing the intruder to be armed and cornered in the bathroom, he then fired three more times through the door, perhaps because he was unwilling to take the chance of opening the door and potentially exposing himself to a weapon.
However, the case doesn't simply exist in isolation in that. There is bound to be additional evidence to the case - at the very least, the prosecution would need to prove that Pistorius knew Steenkamp was in the house at the time and that she did not simply make a surprise visit if they want to make a charge of premeditated murder stick.
- 19,013
- Jersey V.1.0
- axletramp
It's difficult to say as I don't live in a country with a high rate of gun crime or break-ins in general, but I think I might have checked whether my girlfriend or wife was in the house before pulling the trigger in the dark. I would have thought it more likely that it was her rather than an intruder, unless of course it was some kind of surprise she was pulling. In which case creeping around your house at night when your boyfriend has a gun in an area where intruders may be common could be seen as a little ill-judged.
Anyway, as you say, that's all conjecture as there's plenty more to come out here.
Anyway, as you say, that's all conjecture as there's plenty more to come out here.
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
The prosecution would have to prove it. They'll more than likely leave it alone or only briefly touch on it - since Pistorius and Steenkamp were the only people present, there is no-one to corroborate it. If they tried to get another nearby resident on the stand to testify that they heard shouting from Steenkamp, it wouldn't be too hard for the defence to challenge their testimony and ask whether they could be certain that a) it was Steenkamp shouting, b) she identified herself and in a way that left no doubt as to who it was (ie, shouting "Oscar, it's Reeva!" instead of "Oscar, it's me!"), and c) the witness' opinion wasn't being coloured by reports of a previous shouting match from Pistorius' home. In short, it would be a supplementary piece of evidence, and certainly not the kind of thing you would try and build an entire case on.
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
The timeline might allow for it - but you have to prove it, and that's going to be the hard part. The only way to prove it would be to call up other residents from the gated community, and get them to testify that Steenkamp identified herself in such a way that it was unmistakable to anyone who might have overheard it. Even then, all it would take is one person being uncertain about it, and the defence could easily sow the seeds of reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury, because if one person could be unsure about what they heard, then maybe the others could be, too. That's all the defence has to do. They don't have to prove that Steenkamp didn't shout out, only that the witnesses could have mistaken what they heard. The burden of proof rests with the prosecution: they have to prove what they are claiming.
It's quicker and easier to establish that Pistorius knew Steenkamp was in the house at the time. He's got plenty of money and was deeply paranoid about intruders, so it stands to reason that the exclusive gated community that he lived in offered the very best security that money could buy - twenty-four hour guards, video cameras covering every inch of the place, access controlled by some kind of keycard system, etc. It would be easy to use that to prove that Steenkamp was inside the gated community and/or Pistorius' house for some time before the shooting, which means that he had to know that she was in the house. Furthermore, the security could prove that there was no intruder inside the community or the house at the time of the shooting, which would leave Pistorius having to explain how an intruder managed to get into and out of his home undetected in such a way that they alerted Pistorius to their presence but were never actually identified by him as an intruder (ie, knocked something over in a nearby room, but then fled). Unless she was making a surprise visit, but if they were in a serious relationship, then she would have to know that Pistorius was uneasy about his security, and that therefore surprising him would be a very bad idea.
Having the case hinge on whether or not Steenkamp shouted her name out after being shot the first time is a bad strategy. I'm not a lawyer by any means, but even so, I still managed to poke a gaping hole in it in about two minutes by demonstrating that one contradictory or uncertain testimony would jeopardise the testimony of every other witness, assuming that you could prove she shouted her name at all.
It's quicker and easier to establish that Pistorius knew Steenkamp was in the house at the time. He's got plenty of money and was deeply paranoid about intruders, so it stands to reason that the exclusive gated community that he lived in offered the very best security that money could buy - twenty-four hour guards, video cameras covering every inch of the place, access controlled by some kind of keycard system, etc. It would be easy to use that to prove that Steenkamp was inside the gated community and/or Pistorius' house for some time before the shooting, which means that he had to know that she was in the house. Furthermore, the security could prove that there was no intruder inside the community or the house at the time of the shooting, which would leave Pistorius having to explain how an intruder managed to get into and out of his home undetected in such a way that they alerted Pistorius to their presence but were never actually identified by him as an intruder (ie, knocked something over in a nearby room, but then fled). Unless she was making a surprise visit, but if they were in a serious relationship, then she would have to know that Pistorius was uneasy about his security, and that therefore surprising him would be a very bad idea.
Having the case hinge on whether or not Steenkamp shouted her name out after being shot the first time is a bad strategy. I'm not a lawyer by any means, but even so, I still managed to poke a gaping hole in it in about two minutes by demonstrating that one contradictory or uncertain testimony would jeopardise the testimony of every other witness, assuming that you could prove she shouted her name at all.
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
And the answer to that question could of course be yes ... but that doesn't prove anything other than that she yelled out. Pistorius could easily testify - without committing perjury - that her shouts were incomprehensible. She had, after all, just been shot, and was no doubt in pain. So she could have easily yelled out without identifying herself, and we're back to square one: the prosecution would need to prove that she identified herself.
