paralympics 2012

[abdoujaparov]

You've said it can suggest guilt, as has Barry. :rolleyes:It cannot suggest guilt, unless lawyers have no purpose in a justice system. It cannot work either logically or rationally - or evidentially - in any other way.

[eFestivals]

I know perfectly well what evidence is. As I keep saying, I have never once said that the act of calling a lawyer indicates that he is guilty or that it can or should be used to decide his guilt. You are just making that up, sorry. What I have said is that calling a lawyer as one of your first responses to shooting your girlfriend seems odd and, to my mind, suggests that he had a guilty mind.

well of course he's got a fucking guilty mind - if we take his version, he's just accidentally shot his girlfriend dead. Do you think he'd feel no guilt for that?

He also knows - unless he's as dense as some - that he's about to be investigated for what's happened, and very likely locked up. He can't do anything for his dead girlfriend but he can do something for himself for the consequences of his dead girlfriend.

I'd call a lawyer. You'd call a lawyer. Only the very stupid or very naive about the police would not.

I've no idea if he's guilty or not, and I really don't care. But I do care about spurious ideas of what is relevant in this particular case, when the default position - guilty or innocent - is to call a lawyer if you're accused of or about to be accused of a crime.

[eFestivals]

I think you actually might be ill or something ....

Nope. I'm just not as stupid as some.

[eFestivals]

No I haven't. Not once. My comments have been about when he called a lawyer. Everything else you've made up

FFS. Yes I know it's about when he called that lawyer - and that you've said that his timing of that call "suggests something" (his guilt).

So when - IYO opinion - is the right time to call a lawyer?

An hour after arrest? Hey, perhaps they'd have dropped the charges altogether if he'd not called one at all.

He needs a lawyer. The sooner he gets one the better things are likely to go for him - whether innocent or guilty. That's the purpose of lawyers.

What part of that don't you get?

Has your recommended time to call a lawyer been published in legal journals? Or is it perhaps - just perhaps - something you've invented from your prejudices?

[abdoujaparov]

FFS. Yes I know it's about when he called that lawyer - and that you've said that his timing of that call "suggests something" (his guilt).

So when - IYO opinion - is the right time to call a lawyer?

An hour after arrest? Hey, perhaps they'd have dropped the charges altogether if he'd not called one at all.

He needs a lawyer. The sooner he gets one the better things are likely to go for him - whether innocent or guilty. That's the purpose of lawyers.

What part of that don't you get?

Has your recommended time to call a lawyer been published in legal journals? Or is it perhaps - just perhaps - something you've invented from your prejudices?

Edited February 22, 2013 by abdoujaparov

[Guest]

Yes, he needs a lawyer.

For most people, is calling a lawyer the first thing you do having shot your girlfriend? Probably not. The fact that it was one of the first things he did should at least make any dispassionate observer ask why.

Edited February 22, 2013 by tonyblair

[eFestivals]

You are very stupid though...

Non one has said it makes him guilty, or this alone points to guilt. Quite the opposite.

The point is that it cannot be used *AT ALL*, unless you're trying him on a completely unfair basis.

A person who is or who is about to be under suspicion of a crime *SHOULD* call a lawyer. To use calling a lawyer against them as an indication of their guilt renders lawyers pointless within any justice system.

Lawyers are not called just by the guilty, they are called by anyone who is in trouble with the law (and it doesn't take the police to arrive for someone to know they're in trouble with the law, even if entirely innocent of all crimes).

There is no stipulated time to call that lawyer; calling a lawyer is the default position, and calling that lawyer as early as possible put ANY defendant (guilty or not) in the best position towards what they have or haven't done.

Calling a lawyer early CAN NOT be used against him and there still be justice in that justice system.

To use calling a lawyer against anyone is anti-justice, not justice.

It gives some indication on his state of mind. What he was making a priority.

the ONLY indication it gives of his state of mind is that he knows he's in the shit, not that he's guilty.

Defending yourself when you're in the shit is *ALWAYS* a priority, guilty or not.

There is no stipulated order of doing things. All people do things differently (I refer to the comment I made about taking the chicken out of the oven).

It tells no one ANYTHING useful towards justice. It works on people's prejudices only.

Edited February 22, 2013 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Do you really think either of us are saying he shouldn't of contacted a lawyer ?

Its the timing thats interesting not the act. You can't get passed the act it seems.

Someone I know's dearly loved mother died over xmas, totally unexpectedly.

On hearing the news the first thing they said was "I must get the chicken out of the oven", and that's what they did.

Does that 'interesting' fact say anything about the feelings that person had for their mother, or not?

Edited February 22, 2013 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Yes, he needs a lawyer.

For most people, is calling a lawyer the first thing you do having shot your girlfriend? Probably not. The fact that it was one of the first things he did should at least make any dispassionate observer ask why.

they can ask and they still wouldn't understand.

People do all sorts of strange things in strange and stressful situations - and shooting your girlfriend (accident or not) is exceedingly likely to be strange and stressful.

Does asking the question inform you of that person's guilt in any way whatsoever?

Nope. It only informs a person's prejudices.

[Ruwise]

It's difficult given that that there has been so much information and misinformation in the press to rely on anything that has been reported as true or not but for me one thing is key. He killed somebody by shooting first and asking questions later. Picking up a gun and shooting somebody is murder. He was in no immediate danger and so the action he took was excessive for the situation he was in (that is even if you do believe his version of events) I don't understand why it is even a question as to whether he should be charged with murder or not.

Regardless of whether he gets away with taking a life or not his reputation is ruined.

[bunique]

How do we know he was in no immediate danger?

[bunique]

Sorry, I'll rephrase. How do we know he did not *perceive* himself to be in immediate danger?

[abdoujaparov]

The point is that it cannot be used *AT ALL*, unless you're trying him on a completely unfair basis. :rolleyes:A person who is or who is about to be under suspicion of a crime *SHOULD* call a lawyer. To use calling a lawyer against them as an indication of their guilt renders lawyers pointless within any justice system.

[eFestivals]

Picking up a gun and shooting somebody is murder.

From what people have posted here (which I presume to be true) that's not the always-case in SA law. Picking up a gun and shooting someone when in fear of your own safety is not murder under SA law (apparently).

It's also worth bearing in mind that he is not (just) the athletic strong male he appears at first glance, but someone with a massive disability - which means he'd have rational reason more to fear what could be behind that bathroom door than most.

I've no idea if he's guilty and I don't really care either way, but I can see how it might have happened to fit with what I know of what he's supposed to have said happened.

Phone calls he made after the event add zilch to a judgement on his guilt or not, unless there's also evidence to show an attempt to cover up the crime or alter the crime scene.

[eFestivals]

And none, not me, not Barry, no one has suggested otherwise. Not once.

Barry certainly has, and you've said that it "suggests something" towards his guilt.

At least Barry is big enough to stand behind his more stupid statements.

[Ruwise]

I believe it should not be about perception but fact. When I walk down a street at night I always perceive that there could a danger to myself. I often do the keys in my hands trick so that if I should be attacked I have the a defensive weapon ready to hand. In these circumstances I often feel vulnerable and have passed what I believe to be dodgy looking men who could do me harm but I don't attack them all. If they did attack me I'd like to think I'm ready for them but the point is it is illegal to attack somebody unprovoked.

Even if it was an intruder to shoot without saying 'I am outside the bathroom and I am armed I am calling security now if you come out and attempt to hurt me or my girlfriend you will be shot' as a warning surely should be expected. In this case if he had said that there is no way he could have shot her as she would have shouted out. Oscar it's me and nothing further would have happened.

[eFestivals]

I believe it should not be about perception but fact. When I walk down a street at night I always perceive that there could a danger to myself. I often do the keys in my hands trick so that if I should be attacked I have the a defensive weapon ready to hand. In these circumstances I often feel vulnerable and have passed what I believe to be dodgy looking men who could do me harm but I don't attack them all. If they did attack me I'd like to think I'm ready for them but the point is it is illegal to attack somebody unprovoked.

Even if it was an intruder to shoot without saying 'I am outside the bathroom and I am armed I am calling security now if you come out and attempt to hurt me or my girlfriend you will be shot' as a warning surely should be expected. In this case if he had said that there is no way he could have shot her as she would have shouted out. Oscar it's me and nothing further would have happened.

it's one thing giving a Brit perspective on it, it's very different if schooled in a very different culture.

If this had happened in Texas we'd be rolling our eyes and saying 'again' and not be surprised at all.

The impression I have of SA is that attitudes towards a criminal in your home are far closer to the USA than the UK.

[eFestivals]

she would have shouted out. Oscar it's me and nothing further would have happened.

yep, that's what would have happened if circumstances play out perfectly in every case and no one ever makes an error of judgement about a situation.

Circumstances don't play out perfectly in every case and people often make an error of judgement about a situation for any number of reasons. One or more of doziness in the middle of the night, fear, emotion, a rush of blood to the head could be in play here, and while we don't know that things happened like he says it's certainly possible because shit happens.

[fred quimby]

I'd call a lawyer. You'd call a lawyer. Only the very stupid or very naive about the police would not.

Edited February 22, 2013 by fred quimby

[Ruwise]

it's one thing giving a Brit perspective on it, it's very different if schooled in a very different culture.

[eFestivals]

I don't think I would as I'd be to upset and beside myself. Not naive. Perhaps your just cold which is fair enough some people are I guess

We'd all call a lawyer at some point; when we'd do it would probably be related to to how soon it occurs to us.

Your thought process might not go how you think. That's the whole bleeding point, no one really knows how they'd act in a particular circumstance until that circumstance comes around.

If we all got it so perfectly every time, there'd be almost nothing dreadful ever happen. Things go wrong everywhere, including within the most predictable of circumstances.

[fred quimby]

Even if it was an intruder to shoot without saying 'I am outside the bathroom and I am armed I am calling security now if you come out and attempt to hurt me or my girlfriend you will be shot' as a warning surely should be expected. In this case if he had said that there is no way he could have shot her as she would have shouted out. Oscar it's me and nothing further would have happened.

[fred quimby]

We'd all call a lawyer at some point; when we'd do it would probably be related to to how soon it occurs to us.

Your thought process might not go how you think. That's the whole bleeding point, no one really knows how they'd act in a particular circumstance until that circumstance comes around.

If we all got it so perfectly every time, there'd be almost nothing dreadful ever happen. Things go wrong everywhere, including within the most predictable of circumstances.

[fred quimby]

Its not even that important of an issue... There are way bigger issues than this. I can't actually believe we are discussing it ??

I know something though. Its all we will hear from Neil now...

[Ruwise]

Now I am speculating before Neil goes off on one as he is also.

But have we heard how many shots were fired? just wondering if the same amount of shots ended up in her.

Also if he was so scared why did he go in the bathroom before phoning police, or was it after he realised his girlfriend was not there.

And was this an ensuite bathroom