Is Oscar Pistorius getting unfair press ?
Comments
-
Latest revelation that Police chief being himself investigated on murder charges... You couldn't make this stuff up could you0
-
VTech wrote:
I HAVE NO ISSUE WITH THE LEGAL SYSTEM IN AFRICA
I HAVE NO ISSUE WITH THE LEGAL SYSTEM IN AFRICA
I HAVE NO ISSUE WITH THE LEGAL SYSTEM IN AFRICA
I HAVE NO ISSUE WITH THE LEGAL SYSTEM IN AFRICA
I HAVE NO ISSUE WITH THE LEGAL SYSTEM IN AFRICA
I HAVE NO ISSUE WITH THE LEGAL SYSTEM IN AFRICA
Just in case anyone was wondering.
My point is aimed at media, MEDIA, MEDIA, MEDIA.
It is wrong in any society for someone to be guilty before a trial, its what keeps justice in order and even then mistakes are made.
It is morally wrong to judge anyone before trial, its the sanctity of society to give someone a chance to explain before his or her peers.
And before anyone questions what I have wrote you need only read the posts above to view peoples thoughts which will be echoed around world. You need to put yourself in someones shoes (pun not intended) before judging, if you lived in a community/country where life was cheaper than here and you knew that if you disturbed a burglar, the chances are you would be shot or stabbed how would you react ?
Of course it could also be the case that he killed her, I dont know, but for me I just look at whats happened, I have no alternative but to ask myself, what did he have to gain ?
He is rich, they are not married, in fact only together 2 months so if he didnt want her he could simply ship her out.
Thats not to say he still didnt do it, I just dont like the thought of people finding people guilty before a court has ruled.
This of course is only my opinion and if I have dramatically upset anyone with my ramblings then please accept this sentence as a very sorrowful apology, sent from the heart.
Ironically though, it's the very nature of SA legal system that has made it into the media circus that it is.
Don't confuse people calling you up on a very badly written thread with them being upset. You should read what you write before hitting submit, you then wouldn't have to back pedal so much to explain yourself further down the line.
People are judging him on the facts as far as I can see, and at the moment the facts are that he killed his girlfriend in what seems like a very fishy business to say the least.0 -
upperoilcan wrote:Correct me if im wrong but im sure i read somewhere that the bullets that were fired were fired from a gun pointing towards the floor execution stylee.
Secondly,why was his brother and lawyer at the scene before the police ?
I read that she also had gunshot wounds to both hands that were consistent with her covering her head/face whilst being shot, but there could be several reasons for this I guess.
Damage control is the answer to your second question.0 -
Garry H wrote:Ironically though, it's the very nature of SA legal system that has made it into the media circus that it is.
Don't confuse people calling you up on a very badly written thread with them being upset. You should read what you write before hitting submit, you then wouldn't have to back pedal so much to explain yourself further down the line.
People are judging him on the facts as far as I can see, and at the moment the facts are that he killed his girlfriend in what seems like a very fishy business to say the least.
Ive read a few things about this now and obviously I have no idea what happened but I do get the feeling he is getting unfair press, there is no evidence he committed murder and today it was said that the total evidence from the police is that a neighbour reported to hear them arguing through the evening prior to the shooting.
This initially had me thinking "did he ?" but today the defence said that the neighbour is over 300m away
Now my neighbour is closer than that and she has never heard me ripping into the kids for playing up !
I cant understand why he hasnt been released yet, there are no other people involved and so he shouldnt pose a threat being released and im a believer in innocent until proven guilty.
Another thing that I believe is an issue is the fact that there had been a spate of burglaries locally and they are known to kill people with ease as is the norm with African crime, like it is in the Caribbean, they like not to leave whiteness'.
Your thoughts ?
That was my original post, I referred to bad press, I think it was very well written with no back peddling needed.Living MY dream.0 -
Garry H wrote:
Damage control is the answer to your second question.
Exactly...
Lawyer first to get the story straight,then to the police.
Very fishy indeed.Cervelo S5 Ultegra Di2.0 -
VTech wrote:Garry H wrote:Ironically though, it's the very nature of SA legal system that has made it into the media circus that it is.
Don't confuse people calling you up on a very badly written thread with them being upset. You should read what you write before hitting submit, you then wouldn't have to back pedal so much to explain yourself further down the line.
People are judging him on the facts as far as I can see, and at the moment the facts are that he killed his girlfriend in what seems like a very fishy business to say the least.
Ive read a few things about this now and obviously I have no idea what happened but I do get the feeling he is getting unfair press, there is no evidence he committed murder and today it was said that the total evidence from the police is that a neighbour reported to hear them arguing through the evening prior to the shooting.
This initially had me thinking "did he ?" but today the defence said that the neighbour is over 300m away
Now my neighbour is closer than that and she has never heard me ripping into the kids for playing up !
I cant understand why he hasnt been released yet, there are no other people involved and so he shouldnt pose a threat being released and im a believer in innocent until proven guilty.
Another thing that I believe is an issue is the fact that there had been a spate of burglaries locally and they are known to kill people with ease as is the norm with African crime, like it is in the Caribbean, they like not to leave whiteness'.
Your thoughts ?
That was my original post, I referred to bad press, I think it was very well written with no back peddling needed.
You are aware that there is no jury system in SA courtrooms, aren't you? In that case, how is he being "set up" and to what purpose?0 -
Decided to change my comment as nothing can be gained here.Living MY dream.0
-
Manslaughter:
"The crime of killing a human being without malice aforethought, or otherwise in circumstances not amounting to murder."
Murder:
"The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another."
Seems to me (with respect to the victim) the victim is irrelevant.
OP put four rounds through a door. I'd say that was an premeditated act.
So he murdered someone, just not who (he says) he thought it was....0 -
Premeditated:
Characterized by deliberate purpose, previous consideration, and some degree of planning
Not sure it was planned if he heard a noise (from whoever) in the bathroom and reacted to it.
Firing 4 shots is just making sure, surely?
0 -
Another thing that I believe is an issue is the fact that there had been a spate of burglaries locally and they are known to kill people with ease as is the norm with African crime, like it is in the Caribbean, they like not to leave whiteness'.
WYF does this mean?'dont forget lads, one evertonian is worth twenty kopites'0 -
~~~~~~Sustrans - Join the Movement~~~~~~0
-
Typo,he means wtf.natrix wrote:0 -
It means, and I really am struggling with the lack of brain power here (of course this will offend but due to the fact that I have made myself clear it seems to me that you guys are simply not grasping it when in reality it is very clear and concise).
I originally changed that statement, not as a kop out clause, but I didnt want to offend but how can you offend people who have no ability to take in a comment ?
On another thread some of you guys suggested I dont use the turbo and get out on the road, ive taken that on board and done that yet here, I simply say that the trial should take place before the media confirms his guilt and you guys suggest I am on his side when in fact he is a murderer. (I dont suggest that, its peeps here suggesting that)
I then go a step further and again explain myself, informing you all that I am in fact not on his side and instead just think that he should be tried for the offence and let the cards fall where they may yet still what I said is being argued against.
Its like me saying to my son, clean your room and him saying "but were going on holiday next year"
It doesnt add up, it doesnt make sense, its really kinda freaky.Living MY dream.0 -
Vtech - this is an internet forum, not a court of law so he can be guilty, innocent or unfit to plead, our opinions are just noises in the air.
i ve been on plot watches in SA, with others and on my own, with Berrata 9mm on the passenger seat and no one in their right mind would shoot into a closed room, knowing there was a "loved one" in the house.
that said OscarP may not be all there and may indeed be paraniod over his own safety, he may have been on steriods or had an argument and gunned her down in temper, the trial will reveal all but to let anyone out on bail who has killed his girlfriend in such a manner needs to be strutinised surely?
It appears to you that he may possibly be being set up because so much is in open court and we are getting all the info 3rd and 4th hand.0 -
mamba80 wrote:Vtech - this is an internet forum, not a court of law so he can be guilty, innocent or unfit to plead, our opinions are just noises in the air.
i ve been on plot watches in SA, with others and on my own, with Berrata 9mm on the passenger seat and no one in their right mind would shoot into a closed room, knowing there was a "loved one" in the house.
that said OscarP may not be all there and may indeed be paraniod over his own safety, he may have been on steriods or had an argument and gunned her down in temper, the trial will reveal all but to let anyone out on bail who has killed his girlfriend in such a manner needs to be strutinised surely?
It appears to you that he may possibly be being set up because so much is in open court and we are getting all the info 3rd and 4th hand.
I dont think he is being set up in the fact that the police have made up the allegations, I said that earlier, I just have a huge hatred for the system of people thinking someone guilty before a trial. I just cant accept it, I know people do it, I just think its bad.
I have no idea on gun use, I have shot a 38 and 44 in the US whilst working out there and didnt like it, I ont be repeating it and I do think your comment is very good, having seen the images this evening on the news of where the shots were I cant help but think something isnt right so of course, we all have opinions.
The only thing I think needs to change is the way media play out the case prior to trial, how can anyone be impartial ?
It seems to me that people want to be involved, take the neighbour who "heard" shouting from inside the house when she lives 300 meters away ! this cant be true.
On the other side, why would his brother be called before the police, I would call the ambulance first if I shot the wife.
Life from every walk of life and every society would be better if the information was kept from the public and business domain prior to trial, it makes a mockery of so called justice systems and lets say he is guilty, if we followed law, he would have to be freed as who could honestly say they have not been influenced by media or third parties ?Living MY dream.0 -
VTech wrote:It means, and I really am struggling with the lack of brain power here (of course this will offend but due to the fact that I have made myself clear it seems to me that you guys are simply not grasping it when in reality it is very clear and concise).
I originally changed that statement, not as a kop out clause, but I didnt want to offend but how can you offend people who have no ability to take in a comment ?
On another thread some of you guys suggested I dont use the turbo and get out on the road, ive taken that on board and done that yet here, I simply say that the trial should take place before the media confirms his guilt and you guys suggest I am on his side when in fact he is a murderer. (I dont suggest that, its peeps here suggesting that)
I then go a step further and again explain myself, informing you all that I am in fact not on his side and instead just think that he should be tried for the offence and let the cards fall where they may yet still what I said is being argued against.
Its like me saying to my son, clean your room and him saying "but were going on holiday next year"
It doesnt add up, it doesnt make sense, its really kinda freaky.
The thing is that to me it wasn't very "clear and concise" and seems this may have been the case with the others as well. You posed the question asking whether he was being set up (Which to me means some kind ofconspiracy to arrive at a conclusion other than the truth), then posted what to me was a rambling about the press. Perhaps what you should have asked is whether OP was being treated unfairly by the press? You then also implied that he was being set up by the prosecution, without taking into account that there are pretty good reasons for not allowing bail. All in all, it did seem a bit like you didn't know that he had actually admitted to killing her, although i do realise now that you did.
I asked you about the SA court system because this has a direct effect on how this is all being played in the media. There is no jury present, it's trial by judge (along with a selection of field experts, as far as my understanding goes anyway). Therefore, there is no risk of the media influencing the layperson, ie a jury. If this incident had happened in the UK, a lot of this information would have been barred (for want of a better word) from the press. I'm not going to go into any conspiracy theories though.
As i've already said, to me the whole thing is extremely fishy and his actions and reasoning are odd, to say the least. My initial thought was that he may have been p*ssed or otherwise intoxicated and had shot her knowingly, but in some kind of rage. I'm not sure whether I've read anything since that has made me change my mind.
I apologise to you as I may have come across as aggresive perhaps, but you may wish to take time out and try to see yourself as others see you, as a wise man probably said.
As far as your cycling goes, I haven't read the thread that you refer to, but my advice would be the same as the others you allude to, just try and get out as much as you can, you will gain confidence. It's not easy to imagine what it would be like to venture onto the roads, if you haven't done so since you were a child, if you've been cycling for thirty odd years.
Oh, and one more thing; no way does that guy have a case for constructive dismissal, not even in the same ballpark (denoting that this is being said in humour, but nontheless with conviction) 0 -
The evidence points to either manslaughter or murder in this country. As for the media performing a witch hunt I would argue that the media are being fairly supportive in putting forward the case that the copper is a bit dodgy with multiple manslaughter/murder charges against him. Quite why this matters in this case unless his defense is that the copper shot his missus.
Oscar is obviously a highly dangerous person to own a gun given his apparent paranoia of being killed by a burglar with his shoot first ask questions later attitude. Alternatively he is a equally dangerous killer. Unless there is some evidence that it was not his gun and someone else shot him then this is the only logical conclusion I can draw.
Think about what the media would be saying if he was not a celebrity. He would be just another maniac with a gun. It is only because of his status and hence media interest that the details of this case have been aired by both prosecution and defense. Oscars leagal team feel that the best form of defense is to characterise their client as making a terrible mistake and mud flinging at the legal system. Getting their case out there early for example.0 -
VTech wrote:It means, and I really am struggling with the lack of brain power here (of course this will offend but due to the fact that I have made myself clear it seems to me that you guys are simply not grasping it when in reality it is very clear and concise).
.....
do you realise how stupid you make yourself sound with that remarkWant to know the Spen666 behind the posts?
Then read MY BLOG @ http://www.pebennett.com
Twittering @spen_6660 -
Not really, you have simply taken a segment of my comment and made a reply based on that segment.
I have not suggested he isnt a maniac, its the people with lack or reading ability that have suggested that. I have simply said he should be tried by the judge, not the media.
Thats quite a simple thing to understand, I cant see why that isnt the case myself ?Living MY dream.0 -
VTech wrote:Not really, you have simply taken a segment of my comment and made a reply based on that segment.
I have not suggested he isnt a maniac, its the people with lack or reading ability that have suggested that. I have simply said he should be tried by the judge, not the media.
Thats quite a simple thing to understand, I cant see why that isnt the case myself ?
There is a saying about when in a hole you should stop digging
You are seemingly the only person who thinks you have made yourself clear.Want to know the Spen666 behind the posts?
Then read MY BLOG @ http://www.pebennett.com
Twittering @spen_6660 -
Can you guide me ?
Let me know where I was wrong ?Living MY dream.0 -
One thing is for certain, he will do jail time. He killed someone unlawfully and there is a reckoning to be had.
I also sincerely doubt we'll be seeing him in Rio.0 -
VTech wrote:The only thing I think needs to change is the way media play out the case prior to trial, how can anyone be impartial ?
Good piece on the BBC explaining this the other day. The reason we get to hear so much detail is due to the SA legal system not using Jurys. Therefore there is nobody to influence other than the judge who hears it all first hand anyway.
Historically, this lack of a jury is a reaction to both Apartheid (e.g. Black defendant not getting fair hearing from white jury) and witness tampering.
Doesn't actually matter what spin the media put on the evidence from a fair trial perspective.0 -
morstar wrote:VTech wrote:The only thing I think needs to change is the way media play out the case prior to trial, how can anyone be impartial ?
Good piece on the BBC explaining this the other day. The reason we get to hear so much detail is due to the SA legal system not using Jurys. Therefore there is nobody to influence other than the judge who hears it all first hand anyway.
Historically, this lack of a jury is a reaction to both Apartheid (e.g. Black defendant not getting fair hearing from white jury) and witness tampering.
Doesn't actually matter what spin the media put on the evidence from a fair trial perspective.
Yes, I agree with what you say, I have read that they will almost certainly use 11 judges in this case to deliberate.
As I said, it looks bad, thats never been my issue, I dont want murderers walking around willy nilly.Living MY dream.0 -
Garry H wrote:
Think if the OP changed the title and removes the "being set up" to "unfair press" then if you reread what he has put it does make more sense.
But as someone else mentioned the legal system in SA is more open that we would get in the UK and is not unlike the OJ Simpson trial. Plus he is one of SA biggest stars so you can kind of understand (even if you don't agree with the way some sections of the press report things) the massive interest in the country.
With the way this pre-trial hearing is going who knows what is going to come out today, we've had claims and counter claims and I find some credible and others rather beyond belief.Pain hurts much less if its topped off with beating your mates to top of a climb.0 -
I'm always amused that when numerous people 'misunderstand' the meaning intended by a person posting on a forum it is because all those people are stupid and not becuase the original post is an ill thought out, rambling mess of words.0
-
Pross wrote:I'm always amused that when numerous people 'misunderstand' the meaning intended by a person posting on a forum it is because all those people are stupid and not becuase the original post is an ill thought out, rambling mess of words.
?
I'd have thought it was the other way round, one person misunderstanding may be a bit stupid but when numerous people misunderstand its its a mixture of stupid people and a not well presented post.
Either way I'll put my hand up and say I am one of the stupid ones
Pain hurts much less if its topped off with beating your mates to top of a climb.0
This discussion has been closed.
