The Blade Runner Trial
- Thread starter Rosco
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
I think the prosecutor had a word during lunch. The defense lawyer tried to find a loophole in his closing arguments along the lines of "He can't be guilty of murdering Reeva because he didn't know it was her, and he can't be guilty of killing an intruder because there wasn't one". The prosecutor didn't dignify that with a response, and from there I think she actually bought the argument as she was on the verge of letting him walk before lunch. It's worrying, I think she is a little retarded at understanding the law.
When she realised the galatically stupid mistake she was about to make, she ran for it. She's probably frantically typing up a new judgement.
I reckon he needed a dirty great shit, but was too afraid to use the bathroom
So, The judge reckons there was not sufficient evidence to suggest that Pistouris could foresee that his actions could result in the death of the person behind the toilet door - BY FIRING FOUR SHOTS INTO THE TOILET DOOR.
That's almost as mental as Dantes.
That's almost as mental as Dantes.
I watched it this morning and to start with thought she was buying all his crap and giving him the benefit of the doubt on everything that was to do with motive.
I initially thought she was doing it because she was over sensitive about the race difference (would a saffa male have really taken his word about everything in spite if saying he was shifty?)
But now I think she wants to change case law there about murdering intruders. Over there you can defend with fairly excessive force and she wants to use this to draw a line. She can do that by giving guilty verdict on manslaughter with maximum sentence and add on all to the other bits to get to over 20 years for him which he probably deserves. The trade off is the right verdict on him (although he'll get a long sentence) against trying to stop people getting away with shooting intruders in future potentially saving a lot of lives.
I initially thought she was doing it because she was over sensitive about the race difference (would a saffa male have really taken his word about everything in spite if saying he was shifty?)
But now I think she wants to change case law there about murdering intruders. Over there you can defend with fairly excessive force and she wants to use this to draw a line. She can do that by giving guilty verdict on manslaughter with maximum sentence and add on all to the other bits to get to over 20 years for him which he probably deserves. The trade off is the right verdict on him (although he'll get a long sentence) against trying to stop people getting away with shooting intruders in future potentially saving a lot of lives.
Right, so the judge reckons that a reasonable person would have foreseen that shooting four times through the door would kill the person behind it, but yet cleared Pistorius because he didn't foresee this.
She didn't know what she was talking about. I don't even think she wrote the judgement herself, because the way she read it out was like she was seeing it for the first time, regularly becoming confused and having to correct and re-phrase things. She's simply not that smart.
In very broad terms I thought her approach was quite refreshing in comparison to the recent behaviour of English courts. Rather than try the person, she tried the case, so, unlike English courts these days, which seem to take faulty memory (for example) as proof in itself of sexual perversity from 40 years ago, she didn't jump from OP's inconsistencies and contradictions straight to the judgement that he'd deliberately killed someone. Having said that, her reluctance to believe that someone, even under huge stress, wouldn't know that he might actually harm or kill someone by shooting through a bathroom door is surely erring too far on the side of caution. A bizarre case that will probably drag on and on via appeal.
Yesterday she said he did not foresee that he would kill the deceased... because he believed she was in bed. I think the absurdity of that was pointed out, so today in her "clarification" she says he didn't foresee killing the deceased or for that matter anyone else.
So due to her cock up, she has to now pretend it's her judgement that he shot four times into a small cubical without the intention of killing any person. That is the most dangerous precedent you could imagine. Especially with people like me walking around.
Culpable homicide is a slap on the wrist, he probably won't even go to jail for it. She only found him guilty of it because he should have foreseen that he would kill someone. So it's an act of negligence. Just like the objective subjective thing with Suarez.
For murder he had to subjectively foresee killing someone. For manslaughter it is an objective test of whether a reasonable person would foresee it. Problem is, she has no explanation for how he could subjectively have not meant to kill someone.
So due to her cock up, she has to now pretend it's her judgement that he shot four times into a small cubical without the intention of killing any person. That is the most dangerous precedent you could imagine. Especially with people like me walking around.
Culpable homicide is a slap on the wrist, he probably won't even go to jail for it. She only found him guilty of it because he should have foreseen that he would kill someone. So it's an act of negligence. Just like the objective subjective thing with Suarez.
For murder he had to subjectively foresee killing someone. For manslaughter it is an objective test of whether a reasonable person would foresee it. Problem is, she has no explanation for how he could subjectively have not meant to kill someone.
Don't agree. If you try to mislead the court then making that jump should be the price you pay for doing it. You can't have a system which gives you a free chance to lie your way out of it without any risk or consequence.
Also fuck her. She used the most minute contradiction by any other witness in order to dismiss their evidence entirely.
He won't get any years. The judge believed his story, because she refreshingly ignored that it contained contradictions and inconsistencies. So what we have is a poor man who tragically lost the love of his life due to his negligence. She has not left it open to punish him for that, as according to her judgement that punishment would just be purely vindictive as he had presumably suffered enough already.
UK judges do work hard and earn their money by considering all of the evidence, and deliver a well thought out judgement. The amount of evidence I've submitted is immense, but they will still read it and weigh it all up. Of course they can be corrupt in how they do it, but at least they fucking do it.
What this bitch has done is sit in the court, with a blank stupid expression on her face, taken regular lunch and tea breaks, and then asked herself whether the state proved 100% that he is guilty. They did not, so she cleared him. Seriously. Because the alternative is she would have had to read and understand lots of evidence in order to give it the appropriate weight and see if was persuasive enough. But she was too stupid to do this task, and instead lazily expected 100% proof to be presented, when it wasn't that was the limit of her abilities.
She's in the wrong job.
What this bitch has done is sit in the court, with a blank stupid expression on her face, taken regular lunch and tea breaks, and then asked herself whether the state proved 100% that he is guilty. They did not, so she cleared him. Seriously. Because the alternative is she would have had to read and understand lots of evidence in order to give it the appropriate weight and see if was persuasive enough. But she was too stupid to do this task, and instead lazily expected 100% proof to be presented, when it wasn't that was the limit of her abilities.
She's in the wrong job.
R
RedZeppelin III
Guest
funnily enough a number of media outlets are reporting that the judge has gained lots of respect and popularity due to the "calm and composed" way she has conducted this whole thing . go figure .
Anyway for many reasons it's a very interesting trial . If everything he says is actually true it still says a hell of alot about him and south african society in general .
it's scary that so many people live with that level of fear due to the violence . fuckwit of a chap and a place.
Anyway for many reasons it's a very interesting trial . If everything he says is actually true it still says a hell of alot about him and south african society in general .
it's scary that so many people live with that level of fear due to the violence . fuckwit of a chap and a place.
The one thing that this whole case has taught me, is that Dantes knows fuck all about how the legal system functions or interprets evidence.
Good luck with your court case Dantes.
Good luck with your court case Dantes.
Thanks, but please elaborate.
My case is similar because it's decided by a judge with written reasons. That's much better than a jury or a magistrate just hearing some evidence and pulling a verdict out of thin air. However, I only need to prove my case on the balance of probabilities, and I've still gone further to prove it beyond reasonable doubt just to make sure. I don't mess around.
The other similarity is a lot of my argument against the university points out mutually destructive submissions. There are facts that if you believe them then the university lied to UKBA, if you don't believe them then they lied to HMRC. Either way they're getting fucked. Other facts show they either lied to court, or else lied to UKBA. I don't care which it is. That's how I roll. I ain't turning up to court asking the judge to interpret the facts. I'm turning up to ask how he wishes to fuck them.
The prosecutor here did try to use mutually destructive facts too. Based on the Oscar's cross-examination he said he was acting in self-defence and also that had no intention to shoot. Both can't be true. The barrister did the proper thing and asked for the entire evidence to be rejected, which backfired. Instead the retard judge decided to pick an interpretation by which she could give Pistrorious the most lenient punishment. She decided he acted in self defence, so can't have been guilty of murder.... and he therefore lied repeatedly to the court when he said he had no intention to shoot. Who knew?
I'm not as stupid as this lawyer. I made sure that whichever way the court interprets my facts, they're getting fucked. The only difference it will make is whether I send my brown envelope to UKBA or to the HMRC. I'll send them to both for the hell of it.
The other similarity is a lot of my argument against the university points out mutually destructive submissions. There are facts that if you believe them then the university lied to UKBA, if you don't believe them then they lied to HMRC. Either way they're getting fucked. Other facts show they either lied to court, or else lied to UKBA. I don't care which it is. That's how I roll. I ain't turning up to court asking the judge to interpret the facts. I'm turning up to ask how he wishes to fuck them.
The prosecutor here did try to use mutually destructive facts too. Based on the Oscar's cross-examination he said he was acting in self-defence and also that had no intention to shoot. Both can't be true. The barrister did the proper thing and asked for the entire evidence to be rejected, which backfired. Instead the retard judge decided to pick an interpretation by which she could give Pistrorious the most lenient punishment. She decided he acted in self defence, so can't have been guilty of murder.... and he therefore lied repeatedly to the court when he said he had no intention to shoot. Who knew?
I'm not as stupid as this lawyer. I made sure that whichever way the court interprets my facts, they're getting fucked. The only difference it will make is whether I send my brown envelope to UKBA or to the HMRC. I'll send them to both for the hell of it.
If found this comment today from the prosecution quite brilliant,
Mr Nel went on to criticise the use of Pistorius' disability in arguments for a shorter sentence.
"I find it disturbing that a person who fought to compete with able-bodied athletes now shamelessly uses disability in mitigation," he said.
Get the lube to the ready Oscar.. your going down..
Mr Nel went on to criticise the use of Pistorius' disability in arguments for a shorter sentence.
"I find it disturbing that a person who fought to compete with able-bodied athletes now shamelessly uses disability in mitigation," he said.
Get the lube to the ready Oscar.. your going down..
Ah well. At least he's getting *some* porridge
10 months in jail the rest under house arrest..
The ten months in jail he will spend in the prison hospital
The ten months in jail he will spend in the prison hospital
it is for him
Similar threads
-
- Locked
